Stratified Leadership Components and Needs Within Public Rehabilitation

Abstract

Leadership is a critical strategic variable within program management as a process that can motivate employees and influence agency performance. Specifically within the field of vocational rehabilitation (VR), there has been little study of the dynamics of leadership and how these influence the agency, employees, and clients. To date, much of the leadership-related research has focused on clinical supervision, yet there remains a need to continue to build the supervision literature base and to broaden the view of leadership to include the conventional strata found in VR agencies: administration, supervision, and direct service (aspiring leaders) levels. The current study outlines a more comprehensive model of leadership within state VR agencies and then explores administrator’s perceptions of important leadership components, needs for further development, and expected vacancies at each level. The findings reveal expectations of high turnover among senior leader positions over the next 5 years, specify important elements of leadership at each level, and identify numerous needs which are not being adequately addressed through current systems. These results hold value in promoting general understanding of leadership functioning in rehabilitation agencies, informing the design of targeted professional development programs, and establishing improved succession planning across organizations.

Keywords

leadership administration supervision public rehabilitation state vocational rehabilitation state VR agencies

Leadership is a critical strategic variable in program management, as it is a process through which people can be motivated to achieve superordinate goals (Foster, 2007). Across broad disciplines, leadership has been extensively researched and attended to by agency administrators with the recognition that it is inescapably connected to agency performance either directly through organizational productivity or indirectly through factors related to employees (Cogaltay, 2015; Karadag, 2015). Specifically within the field of rehabilitation, empirical studies of leadership and management practices have been scarce (Leahy et al., 2014; Plotner & Trach, 2010) with the majority of relevant literature focused on supervision practice and development (Herbert, 2004; Herbert, Byun, Schultz, Tamez, & Atkinson, 2014; Herbert & Trusty, 2006; Phillips, Schultz, & Thielsen, 2012; Schultz, Ososkie, Fried, Nelson, & Bardos, 2002). Over the past two decades, the literature base has expanded to include new models of supervision (Schultz, 2008), study of the essential competencies (Thielsen & Leahy, 2001), and the development of training programs (Herbert & Bieschke, 2000; Herbert et al., 2014), all designed to further understanding and encourage supervisor development. Yet the problem remains that in public rehabilitation agencies, these supervision systems are still largely unsystematic, incomplete, or inadequate (Bezyak, Ososkie, Trice, & Yeager, 2010; Schultz et al., 2002). Further complicating this issue, the recent passing of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA) and its amendments to the Rehabilitation Act have effectively reduced the minimum qualifications for rehabilitation professionals in state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies (The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 2015). This may hasten the advancement of master’s-level rehabilitation counselors into leadership positions and compound existing problems with supervision.

Schultz (2008) recognized the benefit of expanding the model of supervision into a more complete paradigm that includes clinical supervision, administrative supervision, and professional development functions. Similarly, there is value in extending beyond the supervision level, to incorporate all of the major organizational levels and how each contributes to a more comprehensive model of leadership in public rehabilitation. As Leahy et al. (2014) noted, there is a significant gap in knowledge about leadership style, management practices, and organizational structure in state VR agencies and how these factors may influence client employment outcomes. A broader account could provide a framework for further understanding and exploration. It may also provide context for the assessment of leadership needs at various levels, the design of more targeted professional development programs, and the establishment of more effective succession planning across the entire organization. The current study outlines a more comprehensive model of leadership within state VR agencies and then explores administrators’ perceptions of important components, needs for further development, and expected vacancies at each level.

Leadership Models

There is decidedly inconsistent usage of terminology represented in literature with leadership, supervision, management, and administration either describing similar processes (Henderson, 2009; Lohmann & Lohmann, 2002), or being more carefully discrete (Schultz, 2008). Conceptually, these labels may be fully separable or overlapping depending upon one’s vantage point (Bhugra, Gupta, & Ruiz, 2013). Administration may be thought of as an overall guidance process, and management as a narrower and more technical practice (Lohmann & Lohmann, 2002). Supervision involves a hierarchical relationship between a supervisor and supervisee that has both a professional development and evaluative function (Corey, Haynes, Moulton, & Muratori, 2010). Finally, leadership is a reciprocal process in which people are engaged and mobilized toward achieving individual and common goals (Burns, 1978).

In one sense, leadership can be exercised at all levels (Leslie & Canwell, 2010) with individuals motivating others around them and improving performance whether they work in administrative, supervisory, service delivery, or support staff roles. In another sense, most large rehabilitation agencies have formal hierarchical structures which designate authority and assign orderly positions to leaders and subordinates (Cummings et al., 2011). Although each person plays a part in influencing agency performance and employee behavior, regardless of level, those in higher positions have broader reach and influence.

Cogaltay (2015) noted multiple perspectives for conceptualizing leadership which all attempt to describe what sets certain individuals apart in how they exert influence on others: The trait approach assumes that there are personal characteristics such as intelligence, decisiveness, consistency, and social skill which separate those with leadership potential; the behavioral approach proposes that there are multiple interrelated leadership styles or behaviors, such as concern for people and concern for results, which must be harmonized for efficacy; and the situational approach stresses how environmental conditions affect supervisory style. Incorporating each of these approaches, individuals within the agency may vary as a combination of their traits, behavior, and environment, making up their leader phenotype.

The transformational model has ascended as one of the most prominent paradigms to explain leadership effectiveness (Odumeru & Ogbonna, 2013). First introduced by Burns (1978) and then advanced by Bass (1990), this theory compares and contrasts transactional and transformational leadership styles. According to Burns, transactional leadership involves an exchange relationship, such as in giving information, giving a reward, or giving a punishment. This process tends to focus on meeting personal or task related needs, rather than binding the “leader and follower together in a mutual and continuing pursuit of a higher purpose” (Burns, 1978, p. 20). Odumeru and Ogbonna (2013) described transactional leadership as a managerial approach that looks for deviation or faults in employees work, promoting compliance in followers through rewards and punishments. Contingent positive reinforcement (praise) is offered when goals are met, on time, according to policy, and within budget. Contingent punishments (reprimands) are given when work goals are not met, quality is poor, work is late, or when policies are not followed. In practice, transactional leaders often exercise management by exception, meaning that interactions between managers and subordinates only occur when quotas are not being met, policies are not followed, or something goes wrong. Within this context, transactional leaders tend to be directive, extrinsic motivators that are more compliance oriented than vision oriented. Research has shown that contingent rewards appear to be “reasonably effective under most circumstances,” but management by exception practices leave workers feeling mechanical and can strip a sense of self-worth and work fulfillment (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 4).

Transformational leadership, by comparison, is concerned with establishing a common set of values and vision for the organization, improving performance, encouraging internal motivation, and developing the potential within their followers (Cogaltay, 2015). This transformational style is a transcendence of traditional management roles, focusing rather on the evolution of the organization, starting from a foundation of values, vision, internal motivation, and empowering others. Bass (1990) stated that transformational leaders “broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest” (p. 21). He saw transformational leadership as an extension of transactional leadership, but raised to a level that inspires others to commit to a shared vision, welcomes innovation, and brings out leadership potential within followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

As Burns (1978) described, leadership can mobilize individuals toward fulfilling goals, either through transactional means which result in realizing individual, immediate goals, or through transformational leadership which focuses on higher level common goals, or “end-values” (p. 426). The transactional approach may allow agency personnel to satisfy their individual needs and also be responsible and accountable to the larger group. The transformational leadership approach is a teaching role that elevates the values and goals of followers to achieve significant change or the evolution of the agency (Burns, 1978). Each may have important implications in the functioning of an agency, and it is likely that there is a complementary nature and optimum balance which attends to both immediate needs and policy compliance, and to the collective future-oriented vision.

Bass (1990) asserted that leadership evokes superior performance through the process of sharing the vision. The leader develops and communicates the vision, generating greater awareness and purpose, and helping employees transcend their own self-interests for group or agency interests. Those who assume leader positions across an agency need to have this vision as a foundation that guides their efforts to mobilize others and move the organization toward their future goals (Tansey & Garske, 2007).

Public VR Leadership Structure

State VR agencies typically operate in hierarchical organizational structure, with smaller agencies being flatter and larger agencies having more vertical levels, commensurate with greater numbers of employees and division complexity (Cummings et al., 2011). These hierarchical layers can be categorized more generally by function into administration, supervisory/management, and service delivery levels. Following Bass’s (1990) leadership context, we may model these levels in terms of their relation to the agency vision: administering the vision, supervising the vision, and working toward the vision (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Multilevel leadership in public rehabilitation.

Administering the Vision

Although the purpose of the public rehabilitation program is specified by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (2015) and its amendments, the law also provides substantial flexibility in how each state chooses to administer their program. The functions of the administrator of the agency are varied and typically combine agency, employee, and client welfare dynamics (Henderson, 2009). First and foremost, administrators are responsible for establishing a foundation for their program through the development and communication of the agency vision, mission, and values. They then direct the provision of services by setting the agency structure, management teams, agency policies, operational systems, and the plan for achieving the vision. In addition, there are vital central administrative functions that ensure adequate controls, resource management, and performance management. Finally, the administrators must be attentive to external stakeholders through their political functions, partner associations, and community relations.

Henderson (2009) portrayed the successful administrator as someone who operationalizes the vision and values of the agency; develops systems and sets priorities; leads change processes through planning, implementing, and continuous improvement; establishes a culture of professionalism and professional development; motivates employees; manages the human, political, and financial resources of the agency; and resolves problems on the agency level. They also evaluate the general quantity and quality of work; monitor the integral systems and processes; connect the agency to stakeholders on federal, state, and local levels; and change agency tactics based on environmental conditions. The administrators are responsible for holding others accountable and ensuring that the various subdivisions are aligned with the agency’s vision, mission, values, and policy.

Supervising the Vision

The supervision stratum is responsible for monitoring the provision of services, enhancing the functioning of employees, and improving successful outcomes (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Herbert et al., 2014). In accomplishing these goals, Schultz (2008) described a tripartite model of supervision consisting of administrative, clinical, and professional development roles. This model acknowledges the competing responsibilities for supervisors who hold simultaneous accountability to the agency administration, the counselors and staff they directly supervise, as well as those people with disabilities who receive services. From an administration perspective, supervisors connect the central office message to the employees who are carrying out the work. From a counselor perspective, the supervisor monitors and supports them in their work with clients, by problem solving, offering policy and case guidance, advocating for staff and clients, and promoting staff skill development. From a client perspective, supervisors are responsible for upholding client’s rights and due process and resolving problems with counselors and other staff. This places the supervisor in a delicate position of balancing loyalties and priorities, creating competing pressures from above, to focus on administrative aspects of supervision, and from below, to focus on clinical aspects of supervision.

As Herbert and Trusty (2006) described, administrative supervision is concerned primarily with performance, efficiency, documentation, resource usage, and policy compliance. It tends to focus on agency accountability concerns such as eligibility determination, case timing, plan development, expenditures, and outcomes, above client-focused components, such as case decision making or the therapeutic relationship (Herbert & Trusty, 2006). There is more emphasis on the control of organizational processes and management of personnel in relation to these processes. This administrative oversight role is vital to agency health, in that it connects the organizational mission to specific objectives and activities, ensures compliance with agency policies and procedures, and assures that appropriate standards are maintained (Schultz, 2008). However, this role does not attend to the relational aspects of working with clients nor the ongoing professional development of counselors and support staff.

Clinical supervision by comparison involves what Bernard and Goodyear (2014) called a “triadic” relationship, whereby the supervisor supports the supervisee to enrich their work with clients. This necessarily includes an evaluative component, but principally seeks to improve counselor competency and case decision making through the lens of the counselor–client relationship (Herbert et al., 2014). From an evidence-based position, the focus on the therapeutic relationship is warranted, as it is among the most studied and validated factors leading to positive client change in general psychotherapy (Lambert, 2011) and has also been shown to be related to client outcomes in the state-federal rehabilitation program (Lustig, Strauser, Rice, & Rucker, 2002). The therapeutic relationship should not be seen as a prescriptive element, but rather involves the counselor adapting their interpersonal style to meet the specific needs of the individual (Norcross, Freedheim, & Vandenbos, 2011). Within this context, the clinical supervisor’s role is not facilitating procedural adherence or consistency, but trying to enable counselors to be flexible to better understand, engage, and establish a productive working alliance with a diverse range of clients. In public rehabilitation, there has been a historical and persistent emphasis of administrative supervision over clinical supervision duties, contributing to supervisors having inadequate knowledge and skills in clinical supervision and potential barriers in forming effective supervisory relationships with counselors (Bezyak et al., 2010; Herbert & Trusty, 2006; McCarthy, 2013).

Clinical supervision is inherently connected to professional development but may be understood as an extension of this role, beyond enhancing the supervisee’s competency in working with clients, toward the actualization of their own professional goals and identity (Schultz, 2008). “It is not enough simply to teach about the specifics of each case . . . supervisees must learn from supervision about issues that will translate well into independent practice in the future” (Corey et al., 2010, p. 5).

Working Toward the Vision

There has been little rehabilitation literature devoted to direct service level leadership and no research investigating the leadership development needs of those emergent leaders. The inclusion of the direct service level in the leadership model acknowledges the substantial influence of counselors and other support staff on agency health and performance. In 2013, direct service staff, including counselors and staff supporting counselor activities, made up 85.2% of staff in general agencies, 73.6% in blind agencies, and 82.1% in combined agencies (Rehabilitation Services Administration, 2013). Although superordinate staff have broader reach, these direct service levels make up the large majority of agency human resources and thus bulk of the leaders charge, carrying out the mission of the organization while working toward the developed vision (Tansey & Garske, 2007). At this level, leadership is not assigned and the emergent leader “influences the group through his/her natural abilities and behaviors despite lacking the power of position obtained from a formal assignment” (Cogaltay, 2015, p. 3).

From an organizational perspective, succession planning involves identifying emergent leaders, typically from the senior counselor position, and feeding them into the pipeline for supervisory or administrative advancement. The aspiring leader is expected to first master the fundamentals of VR process, understand policies and procedures, demonstrate VR philosophy and ethical conduct, and be accountable for their performance. Beyond this, they may begin to show a larger organizational orientation, facilitate collaborative partnerships, or take initiative in enhancing the work environment and team building. Unfortunately, in many state VR agencies, the promotion of aspiring leaders can be hampered by inflexible governmental policies or by ineffective systems for identifying those with potential. These prospective leaders may demonstrate exceptional knowledge, skill, or judgment but still need the opportunity to actualize their leadership potential through introductory supervisory experiences or by contributing to larger organizational functions.

Purpose

As leadership is necessarily tied to organizational commitment, health, and performance (Karadag, 2015), there is value in exploring leadership functioning at all levels. Despite advancements in understanding supervision, there are still significant barriers to effective supervision practice (Bezyak et al., 2010) and knowledge gaps in leadership and management practices within public rehabilitation agencies (Leahy et al., 2014). A broader examination of the stratified leadership elements and development needs may provide a framework for understanding and more precisely inform professional development strategies and succession planning. The purpose of the current study is (a) to identify the most important leadership components within each of the hierarchical levels of state VR agencies (administration, supervision, and aspiring leaders), (b) to identify the extent to which these components are being addressed through existing professional development systems, and (c) to report projections of leadership vacancies within state VR agencies across the nation.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of administrators of state VR agencies who were asked to complete a survey of their organization’s current leadership development and supervision needs. The online survey was disseminated to administrators from all 80 state VR programs, consisting of 24 blind agencies, 24 general agencies, and 32 combined (blind and general) agencies in all 50 states and five territories. The instrument was originally designed to provide input for the development and coordination of leadership and supervision technical assistance and training through grant funded technical assistance agencies, so limited demographic information on the subjects was collected. Specific agency information was omitted to maintain anonymity, but job titles were obtained and included agency directors, commissioners, deputy directors, assistant commissioners, field administrators, policy and staff development, performance analysts, and “other” administrators.

Instrumentation

Following a review and consolidation of state VR needs assessments conducted by regional technical assistance and continuing education (TACE) centers from 2013 to 2014, leadership development was identified as a prominent, universal need across state agencies. The TACE center directors assembled a national work group whose purpose was to develop materials and collaborative programs that could be used nationally for training and technical assistance purposes.

A web-based survey containing 70 questions was developed by the TACE center work group to help further specify state VR agency leadership development needs and to more effective target high needs areas. Survey items were constructed to reflect leadership content areas that had been identified through multimethod needs assessment approaches including employee surveys, reviews of agency monitoring reports, advisory board meeting input, senior leadership interviews, agency program evaluation results, and regional administrator meeting input. The instrument was further refined through small-scale pilot testing and requesting feedback from pilot respondents and state VR agency personnel.

Of the 70 questions, two contained demographic information (job title and state agency type), 62 were multiple choices, and six were open-ended. Aside from demographics, there were five distinct sections with items investigating: (a) projections of future leadership vacancies within the agency, (b) administration-level leadership components and development needs, (c) supervisor- or manager-level leadership components and development needs, (d) aspiring leaders/supervisors/managers leadership components and development needs, and (e) the current methods for training personnel at each of the three leadership levels (administrators, supervisors, aspiring leaders). The number of items for each level reflected the disparate emphasis of leadership development within state VR agencies: 19 items at administration level, 28 items at the supervision/management level, and 11 items at the aspiring leaders level.

For each leadership development element, respondents identified the relative importance of that element within their agency, either “not important,” “moderately important,” or “very important” and then whether the element was “already provided” through some kind of training or technical assistance activities or if it still “needs to be developed.” The projections of future leadership vacancies were presented as a range of percentages for the respondent to choose from.

Procedure

The “Leadership Development Survey” was disseminated to each of the 80 state VR directors through a web-based Survey Monkey software link, accompanied by a description of the purpose of the survey and instructions for responding. Directors were asked to respond to the survey based on the current status and needs within their agencies. In many cases, follow-up emails and phone calls were made to further encourage participation by those agencies that did not respond. Originally, the results from the survey were analyzed both as a whole and on a regional basis by individual TACE centers. The TACE center collaborative entered into a planning stage for material and program development but this was abandoned due to the defunding of the TACE center grants. The present study is a secondary analysis of this data which has not been previously reported.

Data Analysis

The SPSS Version 22 for Windows was used to perform all data analyses. The study was descriptive in nature, and used descriptive statistics to summarize patterns within responses. Significance tests for comparing proportions were conducted using one sample binomial tests, with z scores and one-tailed p values being reported for those domains that were higher than the average for that leadership level. All statistical tests were run at the alpha = .05 level. Confidence intervals for proportions were estimated at the 95% level with a finite population correction using a population of 80 (the number of state VR agencies; Ryan, 2013). Missing data were excluded from the reporting of percentages.

Results

There were responses from 50 different state VR agencies out of 80 total programs, representing 38 different states and territories, yielding a response rate of 62.5%. One agency submitted responses from two administrators, for a total of 51 survey responses which were used in the data analysis. Six participants did not finish every item of the survey with the later items being more likely to be omitted: 0.3% missing for administration-level questions, 5.6% missing for supervisory level questions, and 8.9% missing for aspiring leader questions.

Of the three types of state VR agencies, 41.2% of respondents came from general agencies, 27.5% from combined agencies, and 31.4% from blind agencies. Their specified job titles were: 27 state agency directors, administrators, or commissioners (52.9%); six deputy directors, assistant commissioners, or field administrators (11.8%); seven policy or staff development specialists (13.7%); and 11 other administrators which included program managers, senior supervisors, program specialists, or performance analysts (21.6%).

The survey was constructed using leadership development need areas reported by state VR agency personnel during annual needs assessments, and therefore it was expected that many of the items would be identified as “moderately important” or “very important.” The results found very few components reported as “not important,” ranging from 0% to 5% and an average of 1.1% per item. There was greater variation among responses of “moderately important” and “very important” and whether the topic “needs to be developed” or is “already provided.” The “very important” responses were the focus of the analysis and reporting, since these were deemed to be the most essential elements by state VR administrators and this level showed the most variation among responses. To further distinguish among the most prominent leadership components, single sample z tests for proportions were run comparing the percentage indicated as “very important” for individual components to the average proportion indicated to be “very important” across each leadership level (administration, supervision, or aspiring leaders). Similar significance tests were run to identify those components that were in the greatest need of development, by comparing those elements that “need to be developed” to the averages for “need to be developed” across each leadership level. In addition, in evaluating needs of interest, it is advisable to account for both the relative importance of the component and the degree to which it is already being addressed through current processes. Therefore, the results also highlight those components which were above the mean in both “very important” and “needs to be developed.”

Administration-Level Components

At the administration level, the proportions of leadership elements identified as “very important,” the proportion identified as “needs to be developed” (currently not being addressed), and their associated confidence intervals are provided in Table 1. The percentages of items identified as “very important” ranged from 51.0% to 94.0% with the average of 75.8% for this level. Those elements that were significantly higher than average in importance included developing an organizational vision and mission (94.0%), z = 2.84, p < .01; performance management and quality assurance (90.2%), z = 2.24, p = .01; fiscal management (90.2%), z = 2.24, p = .01; and understanding the role and use of data (88.2%), z = 1.91, p = .03.

Table 1.

Administration-Level Components Identified as Very Important and Needs to Be Developed (N = 49–51).

Need	Very important (%)	95% CI	Need to develop (%)	95% CI
Developing an organizational vision	94.0	[89.4, 98.1]	46.0	[37.7, 54.3]
Performance management: PEQA	90.2	[85.3, 95.1]	52.9	[44.6, 61.2]
Fiscal management	90.2	[85.3, 95.1]	41.2	[33.0, 49.4]
Understanding the role and use of data	88.2	[82.8, 93.6]	58.8	[50.6, 67.0]
Strategic planning	86.3	[80.6, 92.0]	45.1	[36.8, 53.4]
Succession planning	86.3	[80.6, 92.0]	74.5	[67.3, 81.8]
Internal communication: with all staff levels	84.3	[78.3, 90.4]	37.3	[29.3, 45.3]
Knowledge of VR policy, regulations	84.3	[78.3, 90.4]	33.3	[25.5, 41.1]
Managing staff and teams	82.4	[76.1, 88.7]	43.1	[34.9, 51.3]
External communication	80.4	[73.8, 87.0]	41.2	[30.0, 49.4]
Political skill: negotiation local/state/federal	76.5	[69.5, 83.6]	60.8	[52.7, 68.9]
Personal and organizational accountability	76.5	[69.5, 83.6]	39.2	[31.1, 47.3]
Role and use of technology	70.6	[63.0, 78.2]	47.1	[38.8, 55.4]
Facilitating an innovative work environment	64.7	[56.8, 72.7]	64.7	[56.8, 72.7]
Agency reporting responsibilities	64.7	[56.8, 72.7]	33.3	[25.5, 41.1]
Understanding the state/federal VR structure	62.7	[54.7, 70.7]	27.5	[20.1, 34.9]
Project management (delegation)	53.1	[44.4, 61.9]	49.0	[40.2, 57.7]
Knowledge of trends in disability advocacy	52.9	[44.6, 61.2]	56.9	[48.7, 65.1]
Developing/delivering policy changes	51.0	[42.7, 59.3]	52.9	[44.6, 61.2]

Note. The 95% CI equals the confidence interval of the stated proportion with a finite population correction of 80. CI = confidence interval; PEQA = program evaluation and quality assurance; VR = vocational rehabilitation.

The proportion of elements identified as “needs to be developed” at this level, ranged from 33.3% to 74.5%, with an average of 47.6%. Those items that were significantly higher than average in need for development included succession planning (74.5%), z = 3.71, p < .01; facilitating innovation in a complex work environment (64.7%), z = 2.31, p = .01; and using political skill and negotiation with local, state, and federal entities (60.8%), z = 1.75, p = .04. Those components that were above the mean percentage in both importance and need for development at this level included performance management and quality assurance, understanding the role and use of data, succession planning, and political skill (negotiation with local, state, and federal entities).

Supervision-Level Components

Table 2 provides the supervisory level proportions of elements identified as “very important,” those that “needs to be developed,” and their associated confidence intervals. The supervisory “very important” needs percentages ranged between 42.9% and 87.8%, with an average of 71.2%. Those components that were significantly higher than average in importance were the ability to provide clinical supervision (87.8%), z = 2.40, p < .01; knowledge of the VR philosophy, policy, and regulations (85.7%), z = 2.10, p = .02; translating organizational goals to performance expectations (85.4%), z = 2.02, p < .02; understanding diverse client cultures for service delivery (85.4%), z = 2.02, p < .02; evaluating and managing staff performance (83.3%), z = 1.70, p = .05; and the ability to mentor and inspire staff (83.3%), z = 1.70, p = .05.

Table 2.

Supervision-Level Components Identified as Very Important and Needs to Be Developed (N = 47–50).

Need	Very important (%)	95% CI	Need to develop (%)	95% CI
Ability to provide clinical supervision	87.8	[82.1, 93.5]	61.2	[52.7, 69.8]
Knowledge of VR policy, regulations	85.7	[79.6, 91.8]	36.7	[28.3, 45.2]
Translate agency goals to expectations	85.4	[79.0, 91.8]	58.3	[49.4, 67.2]
Understanding diverse client cultures	85.4	[79.0, 91.8]	43.8	[34.9, 52.7]
Coaching and inspiring staff	83.3	[76.6, 90.0]	64.6	[56.0, 73.2]
Evaluating and managing staff performance	83.3	[76.6, 90.0]	25.0	[17.2, 32.8]
Performance management: PEQA	83.0	[76.1, 89.9]	44.7	[35.5, 53.9]
Responding to staff diversity	81.6	[74.8, 88.4]	26.5	[18.8, 34.2]
Monitoring and modeling ethical practice	81.3	[74.5, 88.1]	50.0	[41.0, 59.0]
Communication ability	79.2	[71.9, 86.5]	45.8	[36.8, 54.8]
Implementing agency mission and goals	79.2	[71.9, 86.5]	50.0	[41.0, 59.0]
Decision-making skills	79.2	[71.9, 86.5]	50.0	[41.0, 59.0]
Personal and organizational accountability	77.1	[69.5, 84.7]	66.7	[58.2, 75.2]
Conflict management	77.1	[69.5, 84.7]	39.6	[30.8, 48.4]
Balancing needs of agency and staff	75.0	[67.2, 82.8]	72.9	[64.9, 80.9]
Executing improvements to a system	75.0	[67.2, 82.8]	66.7	[58.2, 75.2]
Developing relationships with partners	75.0	[67.2, 82.8]	41.7	[32.8, 50.6]
Fiscal management	75.0	[67.2, 82.2]	54.2	[45.2, 63.2]
Personal leadership style	68.8	[60.5, 77.1]	45.8	[36.8, 54.8]
Team building	64.6	[56.0, 73.2]	37.5	[28.8, 46.2]
Addressing staff training needs	62.5	[53.8, 71.2]	41.7	[32.8, 50.6]
Personal workload and time management	60.4	[51.6, 69.2]	47.9	[38.9, 56.9]
Knowledge of trends in disability advocacy	52.1	[43.1, 61.1]	54.2	[45.2, 63.2]
Negotiation skills	50.0	[41.0, 59.0]	58.3	[49.4, 67.2]
Understanding state/federal VR structure	49.0	[40.2, 57.8]	36.7	[28.3, 45.1]
Situational leadership skills	47.9	[39.1, 56.7]	60.4	[51.6, 69.2]
Project management (delegation)	45.8	[37.1, 54.5]	60.4	[51.6, 69.2]
Supervising staff of different ages	42.9	[34.2, 51.6]	69.4	[61.3, 77.5]

The percentage of components identified as “needs to be developed” at the supervisory level ranged from 25.0% to 72.9%, with an average of 50.4%. Those needs that were significantly more likely than average to be reported as not currently being addressed included balancing the needs of agency and frontline staff (72.9%), z = 2.98, p < .01; supervising staff across the age spectrum (69.4%), z = 2.52, p = .01; personal and agency accountability (66.7%), z = 2.11, p = .02; executing improvements to a system or process (66.7%), z = 2.11, p = .02; and mentoring and inspiring staff (64.6%), z = 1.82, p = .03. The components that were above the mean percentage in both importance and need for further development included the ability to provide clinical supervision, translating agency goals to performance expectations, coaching and inspiring staff, personal and organizational accountability, balancing the needs of the agency and frontline staff, executing improvements to a system or process, and fiscal management.

Aspiring Leaders-Level Components

The percentages identified as “very important,” those that “need to be developed,” and their associated confidence intervals for the aspiring or future leaders level, are presented in Table 3. The proportions identified as “very important” at this level ranged from 42.6% to 89.4%, with an average of 67.6%, while the “needs to be developed” percentages ranged from 34.0% to 73.9%, with an average of 58.7%. Ethical behavior and practice (89.4%), z = 3.03, p < .01, and knowledge of the VR philosophy, policies, and regulations (80.9), z = 1.79, p = .04, were both significantly higher in importance than the average proportion for this level, while coaching and facilitation skills (73.9%), z = 1.95, p = .03, was significantly higher in “needs to be developed.” The only leadership component at this level that was above the mean in both importance and in need for development was personal and organizational accountability.

Table 3.

Aspiring Leaders-Level Components Identified as Very Important and Needs to Be Developed (N = 46–47).

Need	Very important (%)	95% CI	Need to develop (%)	95% CI
Ethical behavior and practice	89.4	[83.7, 95.1]	34.0	[25.3, 42.8]
Knowledge of VR policy, regulations	80.9	[73.6, 88.2]	48.9	[39.7, 58.1]
Understanding roles of supervisor	77.8	[69.7, 85.9]	55.6	[45.9, 65.3]
Personal/organizational accountability	74.5	[66.5, 82.6]	59.6	[50.5, 68.7]
Personal leadership style	66.0	[57.3, 74.8]	66.0	[57.3, 74.8]
Coaching and facilitation	65.2	[56.2, 74.2]	73.9	[65.6, 82.2]
Project management	65.2	[56.2, 74.2]	65.2	[56.2, 74.2]
Understanding state/federal VR structure	65.2	[56.2, 74.2]	43.5	[34.1, 52.9]
Building relationships with partners	63.0	[53.9, 72.2]	69.6	[60.9, 78.3]
Knowledge of current trends in disability	53.2	[44.0, 62.4]	66.0	[57.3, 74.8]
Personal values/organizational mission	42.6	[33.5, 51.7]	63.8	[54.9, 72.7]

Note. The 95% CI equals the confidence interval of the stated proportion with a finite population correction of 80. CI = confidence interval; VR = vocational rehabilitation.

Projections of Future Leadership Vacancies

The state VR agency administrators were asked to estimate the percentage of their VR leadership teams that would retire or leave the agency within the next 5 years for both the administration level (VR directors/commissioners, deputy directors, assistant directors, senior leadership team members) and the supervisory level (regional supervisors, supervisors, managers). When projecting future vacancies at the administration level over the next 5 years, approximately 23.5% of respondents reported low rates of retirement or leaving (under 10%), 25.5% of respondents expected 11% to 35% would leave, 39.3% of respondents expected 36% to 65% exiting, and 11.8% expected more than two thirds of the team would be lost. At the supervisory level over the next 5 years, 21.6% of respondents projected low retirement or leaving (under 10%), 41.2% expected between 11% and 35% would be leaving, 35.3% expected 36% to 65% exiting, and only approximately 2% expected more than two thirds would be lost.

Discussion

The present study described an expanded model of leadership within state VR agencies at the administration, supervision, and aspiring leaders levels and then explored state VR administrator’s perceptions of the importance of individual leadership elements, needs for further development within these elements, and expected vacancies at each level. The findings reveal expectations of high turnover among senior leader positions over the next 5 years, specify important components of leadership at each level, and identify numerous needs which are not being adequately addressed through current systems.

The results indicate that over the next 5 years, 37.3% of state VR agencies expect that more than one third of their supervisory team will turn over and 51.1% of agencies expect that more than one third of their administrative team will leave. As our results indicate, administrators are not confident in their current succession planning processes, meaning they likely lack the capacity to contend with the expected turnover of leaders within their agency. These high rates of turnover at the supervisor level will force the early advancement of counselors to fill these roles, contributing to previously cited problems with inconsistent supervision practice and lack of understanding of roles and expectations (Schultz et al., 2002). It is advisable that rehabilitation educators and state VR agencies plan for this eventuality, through inclusion of supervision into existing preprofessional training at the master’s and doctoral level and as part of their professional development plan once in the field (Herbert, 2004). It is also essential that state VR agencies are proactive and consistent in their process for identifying aspiring leaders and readying them for advancement.

The projected exiting of administrative leaders is particularly concerning, as there are few people who have the capacity to provide training or mentorship at these elite levels. In leading their agencies, these administrators have to make decisions within incredibly complex systems while contending with the ever-present legal, financial and political repercussions. In many cases, their decisions are driven by the urgency of the situation, are based solely on intuition and past experience, and do not consider long-term negative consequences (McFarlane, Enriquez, Schroeder, & Dew, 2011). In effect, for administrators, professional development becomes a self-directed process where experience is gained through experimentation and self-reflective practice. A more proactive approach to decision making and succession planning is needed, to become more future or vision oriented rather than problem or vacancy driven. This can be problematic, however, because changes to state VR administrator positions are often unpredictable and may follow political changes within state government or result from unfavorable fiscal or programmatic audits.

In planning for training programs or systems for leadership development, ideally we should target components which are both highly important and not being supported adequately through existing systems. At the administration level, these include performance management and quality assurance, understanding the role and use of data, succession planning, and the use of political skill in negotiation with local, state, and federal partners. With the exception of succession planning (discussed earlier), these needs reflect the increasing pressures: for accountability in demonstrating outcomes, for the use of data to inform continuous improvement, and to establish quality assurance systems (Sherman et al., 2014). This age of austerity is likely to continue and with it greater political scrutiny of public programs and demands for increased transparency and accountability (Leslie & Canwell, 2010).

According to our results, those leadership components that should be targeted for further professional development at the supervisory level include clinical supervision, translating goals to performance expectations, the ability to coach and inspire staff, personal and organizational accountability, balancing the needs of the agency versus frontline staff, executing improvements to a system, and fiscal management. This list represents a mix of clinical supervision and administrative functions and supports a balanced approach to comprehensive supervisory development programs. As Schultz (2008) noted, these elements of supervision do not occur as isolated activities, they overlap, necessitating a better understanding of how they interact with each other and within the overall organizational culture.

Traditionally in public rehabilitation, there has been a diminished emphasis on clinical supervision, instead favoring administrative roles that stress performance and compliance (Herbert et al., 2014; Herbert & Trusty, 2006). Among the more noteworthy results from the current study, the ability to provide clinical supervision was the most identified “very important” leadership development need at the supervision level. This may indicate a shift in administrator attitudes from the conventional dismissal of clinical supervision functions, toward greater understanding and a more deserving recognition of its influence on counselor professional development and outcomes. The findings further suggest that agencies currently are not adequately addressing this component through existing processes (61.2% of agency administrators reported that clinical supervision systems need to be developed). We are still lacking evidence of the impact of inconsistent or inadequate clinical supervision on micro or macro levels. However, clinical supervision targets the client–counselor therapeutic relationship and related elements such as client engagement, goal setting, collaborative decision making, and supporting positive change. The end result of more effective clinical supervision is expected to translate into greater overall agency performance, improved counselor capacity, and clients who are successfully employed.

The notion of direct service leadership may seem paradoxical on the surface, but this level makes up the large majority of the agency’s human resources and thus has the most potential to influence outcomes. This ground-level work, providing individualized rehabilitation services, is at the core of the state VR process. It is clear from administrator responses that ethical practice and knowledge of VR policy are among the most valued attributes among aspiring leaders, but according to our results, these areas are already being adequately met through existing training. The agencies appear to be less adept at developing coaching, facilitation, and personal accountability among employees. In general, there is less known about how leadership dimensions and functions at the direct service or emergent leader level, as the focus of training and research is usually reserved for supervisory roles. More study of this level is needed to help better understand the key components and processes, to develop improved methods for identifying agency staff with advancement potential, and to establish successful systems for fostering leadership development. Focusing leadership programs at this level is an investment in the agency’s future and may help build a sustainable source for leadership succession. In addition, encouraging staff to enter leadership development programs has the dual purpose of developing their own personal leader abilities and the organizational leadership systems through stimulating exchanges across levels, enhancing organizational investment, helping distribute the responsibility of developing the vision, and taking ownership of the goals to reach that vision (Tansey & Garske, 2007).

It is also worth noting that there are numerous stalwart, rehabilitation counseling professionals who do not hold advancement aspirations, but who continue to contribute substantially to agency outcomes, the work milieu, and leadership at the direct service level. Each individual can influence the general culture through motivating others, fostering learning, encouraging innovation, and promoting agency synergy (Sherman et al., 2014). In addition, those senior counselors are often relied upon for peer consultation and guidance, as they may be more approachable or accessible during supervisory shortages. As Leslie and Canwell (2010) described, public-sector challenges cannot be met by adding more people to leadership positions, but rather by adding more leadership at all levels. Accordingly, individuals at the direct service level should be encouraged to participate in professional development activities and trainings that enhance their leadership potential, whether they pursue promotion or not.

In general, the leadership elements which are perceived by administrators to be most important include a complex array of visionary and pragmatic concerns which reflect a desire for transformational impact while still attending to the inherent constraints of governmental programs. With increasing scrutiny of governmental spending, funders are increasingly demanding accountability and demonstration that services are being provided in a legal, efficient, and effective manner. Nevertheless, leaders in rehabilitation consistently advocate for the innovation to support better futures for people with disabilities. The results of this study show not only an acknowledgment of the importance of performance management, fiscal management, and compliance with VR regulations and policy but also the high value of building an organizational vision, strategic planning, clinical supervision, ethical practice, and inspiring staff to work toward the agency vision. The balance of these administrative versus clinical roles, transactional versus transformational approaches, ensures compliance to existing standards of practice and also striving toward a future-oriented vision.

Limitations

The survey content areas were identified from needs assessments with state agencies and in some cases may not be fully representative of the leadership theory found in the rehabilitation literature base or within the field. In addition, the aspiring leaders (direct service levels) of leadership have received little research attention and have yet to be well defined. As noted earlier, the research base in this area is still limited, such that a comprehensive model for state VR leadership is not adequately supported. It is hoped that this study will voice attitudes from the field that may contribute to future models and theory.

The research design was descriptive in nature, and as a result, interpretations cannot be made regarding predictive or casual relationships among variables. Measurement was also exclusively self-report, which presents a certain degree of bias and error that must also be taken into account. Although, the administrators were instructed to respond to the survey based on the needs of their agencies, it is possible, or even likely, that administrators hold different perceptions of leadership needs than those working in supervisory or direct services roles which may limit generalizability beyond administrators.

Future Directions

In 2015, the updates within the WIOA have effectively lowered the standards of rehabilitation professionals from a master’s-level, certified counselor, to a baccalaureate degree in a related field and 1 year of experience (The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 2015). At this stage, the cascading effect on state VR agencies is unclear, but any comprehensive system of personnel development policy changes is likely to result in significant shifts in supervision and professional development practices and structure. Over time, one would expect a reduction in the number of master’s-level rehabilitation counselors employed by state VR agencies and subsequent movement toward transactional over transformational service delivery. A transactional model for service delivery has the potential to erode the importance of the partnership between a rehabilitation counselor and the individual disability, in favor of providing “one-size-fits-all” rather than individualized rehabilitation services. Moreover, those professionals who are not qualified rehabilitation counselors may not give appropriate attention to therapeutic relationship or may lack the necessary skills in engaging clients, building a working alliance, and assisting them with positive, sustainable change. Although speculative, this movement may accelerate an already disproportionate focus on administrative supervision while further de-emphasizing clinical supervision functions that target the counselor–client therapeutic relationship. As we know the therapeutic relationship is influential to eliciting positive change in clients (Lambert, 2011; Lustig et al., 2002), there are high stakes for people with disabilities and a need to continue to advocate for the employment of qualified rehabilitation counselors, including the appropriate clinical supervision to support and develop these individuals.

Leahy et al. (2014) described the need for future rigorous quantitative research to identify causal relationships between leadership and management practices in state VR agencies and successful employment outcomes for consumers. Among the research directions that they suggest are the explorations of the leadership and management practices in the context of an integrative/generative business model, the effective diffusion of innovations within agencies, and effective recruitment and motivational practices for employees. I would further recommend the development and refining of comprehensive models of leadership and supervision within public VR, so that the components of these models may be tested with respect to their impact on employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational health, and agency performance.

The current study describes an expanded model of leadership within the customary hierarchical VR structure. Sherman et al. (2014) suggested the leader impacts the agency through his or her effect on the organizational culture and that agencies should consider changing from a hierarchical culture to a less structured “culture of adhocracy” which facilitates innovation by allowing greater flexibility, risk taking, and collaboration among employees. In this kind of system, decision making is decentralized, freeing up space for expressing ideas and testing innovative interventions that may be suppressed in formal hierarchies (Sherman et al., 2014). In the leadership context, this is a movement from a more transactional leadership approach to a more transformational approach. Following the ascension of transformational leadership theory, future research should examine how these differing styles and approaches impact culture and subsequent performance within state VR agencies.

There is no panacea for remediating current deficits in understanding, knowledge and skills, but rather what is needed is a field-wide recognition of the influence of leadership on agency health and performance, and a commitment to support the development of rehabilitation professionals in these important domains. This will take a concerted effort from rehabilitation education institutions, state VR agency administrators, credentialing bodies, and national associations to infuse leadership and supervision content into their existing professional development systems.

An initial step forward would be to advance current leadership theory, to continue to build the research base, and to spread this message among relevant stakeholders. This is sometimes termed “translating research into practice” and often involves collaboration between higher education and state VR agencies to initiate pilot or trial programs. Another important early step is the incorporation of leadership and supervision content within existing professional standards for rehabilitation counselors. These standards guide educational programs and would serve to shape future curriculums. The current competency standards from the Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE; 2014), set to be phased out in 2017, do not include supervision or leadership components. The subsuming accreditation body, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs (CACREP; 2016), has limited mention of leadership but do cite an understanding of “the role of supervision” within their professional counseling identity standards. The Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC; 2009) code of ethics emphasizes dutiful supervisor competence and the need for supervisors to meet regularly with supervisees to ensure the welfare of clients. The code states that “rehabilitation counselors who offer supervision services regularly pursue continuing education activities, including both counseling and supervision topics and skills” (CRCC, 2009, p. 20). Despite the mention of supervision component within these standards, it is clear that these domains are not receiving adequate attention and more stout language is needed. It would be advisable for educational institutions follow this lead, and begin to suffuse existing courses with supervision content or design dedicated coursework or experiences to develop these skills among all rehabilitation counseling students. This practice has traditionally been reserved for doctoral-level trainees due to barriers related to readiness, competence, and resource issues (Herbert & Bieschke, 2000). Nevertheless, rehabilitation counselor graduates may rapidly be thrust into supervisory positions, with or without appropriate preprofessional training.

The leadership development responsibilities go beyond the preprofessional training and must also be supported at the state agency level. Targeted leadership development continuing education programs and experiential activities should be offered consistently and relevant components should be included within the performance goals and expectations of employees. It would also be beneficial for state VR agencies to collaborate with educational institutions to introduce training programs in supervision, as these have shown utility in increasing knowledge among participants (Herbert et al., 2014). Moreover, it would be beneficial for national associations, such as the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) to continue to offer orientation training activities and mentorship programs to incoming administrators, to help facilitate their learning and to provide a forum for peer consultation.

Conclusion

Leadership is a critical strategic variable that has been shown to have a positive influence on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational culture, organizational health, organizational learning, and importantly organizational performance (Karadag, 2015). The multiple levels of leadership must work in concert, bound by the vision of the agency, with individual leaders using their sphere of influence to create a supportive and productive environment. The goal of the current study was to explore the leadership components and needs in public rehabilitation agencies through an expanded framework of leadership at the administrator, supervision, and emergent leaders’ ranks. The findings described expectations of high turnover among senior leader positions, specified important components of leadership at each level, and identified needs which agencies currently lack the capacity to meet through their existing systems. These results hold value in promoting general understanding of leadership functioning in rehabilitation agencies, guiding the development of new counselors, informing the design of targeted professional development programs, and establishing improved succession planning across the organizations. It is essential that educational institutions and credentialing bodies begin to integrate these important leadership and supervision components into existing programs and standards that guide the development of rehabilitation professionals. It is also vital that state VR agencies develop improved systems for identification of future leaders, professional development of these personnel, and mechanisms to support them in their roles as administrators, supervisors, or direct service personnel.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Robert Jahner, Debra Whitehead, Joe Mathews, Gayann Brandenburg, and Stephanie Rovig for model development and research assistance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bass

B. M.

(1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.

Bass

B. M.

Riggio

R. E.

(2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bernard

J. M.

Goodyear

R. K.

(2014). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Bezyak

J. L.

Ososkie

J. N.

Trice

A. L.

Yeager

(2010). The importance of counseling supervision in the professional development of public rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 41(4), 30–35.

Bhugra

Gupta

Ruiz

(2013). What is leadership? In Bhugra

Gupta

Ruiz

(Eds.), Leadership in psychiatry (pp. 3–12). Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.

Burns

J. M.

(1978). Leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Cogaltay

(2015). Conceptual perspectives on leadership. In Karadag

(Ed.), Leadership and organizational outcomes: Meta-analysis of empirical studies (pp. 1–18). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification. (2009). Code of professional ethics for rehabilitation counselors. Retrieved from https://www.crccertification.com/filebin/pdf/CRCCodeOfEthics.pdf

Corey

Haynes

Moulton

Muratori

(2010). Clinical supervision in the helping professions: A practical guide. Alexandra, VA: American Counseling Association.

10.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs. (2016). 2016 CACREP Standards. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/for-programs/2016-cacrep-standards/

11.

Council on Rehabilitation Education. (2014). Standards for rehabilitation counselor education programs & self-study document. Retrieved from http://www.core-rehab.org/Files/Doc/PDF/CORE%20Graduate%20Standards%20and%20Self%20Study%20Document%2010-2014.pdf

12.

Cummings

Groomes

Haight

Markve

Matrone

Sabella

. . . Wood

C. J.

(2011). 36th Institute on Rehabilitation Issues: Performance management: Program evaluation and quality assurance in vocational rehabilitation. Hot Springs: University of Arkansas CURRENTS.

13.

Foster

S. T.

(2007). Managing quality: Integrating the supply chain (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

14.

Henderson

P. G.

(2009). The new handbook of administrative supervision in counseling. New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Herbert

J. T.

(2004). Clinical supervision in rehabilitation settings. In Chan

Berven

Thomas

(Eds.), Counseling theories and techniques for rehabilitation health professionals (pp. 405–422). New York, NY: Springer.

16.

Herbert

J. T.

Bieschke

K. J.

(2000). A didactic course in clinical supervision. Rehabilitation Education, 14(2), 187–198.

17.

Herbert

J. T.

Byun

Schultz

J. C.

Tamez

Atkinson

H. A.

(2014). Evaluation of a training program to enhance clinical supervision of state vocational rehabilitation supervisors. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 38(1), 19–34.

18.

Herbert

J. T.

Trusty

(2006). Clinical supervision practices and satisfaction within the public vocational rehabilitation program. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 49, 66–80.

19.

Karadag

(Ed.). (2015). Leadership and organizational outcomes: Meta-analysis of empirical studies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

20.

Lambert

M. J.

(2011). Psychotherapy research and its achievements. In Norcross

J. C.

Vandenbos

G. R.

Freedheim

D. K.

(Eds.), History of psychotherapy (2nd ed., pp. 299–332). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

21.

Leahy

M. J.

Chan

Lui

Rosenthal

Tansey

Wehman

. . . Menz

F. E.

(2014). An analysis of evidence-based best practices in the public vocational rehabilitation program: Gaps, future directions, and recommended steps to move forward. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 41, 147–163.

22.

Leslie

Canwell

(2010). Leadership at all levels: Leading public sector organisations in an age of austerity. European Management Journal, 28, 297–305.

23.

Lohmann

(2002). Social administration. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

24.

Lustig

D. C.

Strauser

D. R.

Rice

N. D.

Rucker

T. F.

(2002). The relationship between working alliance and rehabilitation outcomes. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46, 25–33.

25.

McCarthy

A. K.

(2013). Relationship between supervisory working alliance and client outcomes in state vocational rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57, 23–30.

26.

McFarlane

F. R.

Enriquez

Schroeder

Dew

(2011). How do we lead when change is constant? Journal of Rehabilitation, 77(4), 4–12.

27.

Norcross

J. C.

Freedheim

D. K.

Vandenbos

G. R.

(2011). Into the future: Retrospect and prospect in psychotherapy. In Norcross

J. C.

Vandenbos

G. R.

Freedheim

D. K.

(Eds.), History of psychotherapy (2nd ed., pp. 743–760). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

28.

Odumeru

J. A.

Ogbonna

I. G.

(2013). Transformational vs. transactional leadership theories: Evidence in literature. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2, 355–361.

29.

Phillips

B. N.

Schultz

J. C.

Thielsen

V. A.

(2012). Supervisor self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and the provision of clinical supervision in rehabilitation counseling. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 36(1), 17–26.

30.

Plotner

A. J.

Trach

J. S.

(2010). Leadership development perspectives from community rehabilitation program directors, managers, and direct service personnel. Journal of Rehabilitation, 76(2), 3–9.

31.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, As Amended Through P.L. 114-18. (2015).

32.

Rehabilitation Services Administration. (2013). Core tables for VR agencies (Data search tool). Retrieved from https://rsa.ed.gov/choose.cfm?menu=mb_quick_tables

33.

Ryan

T. P.

(2013). Sample size determination and power. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

34.

Schultz

J. C.

(2008). The tripartite model of supervision for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 39(1), 36–41.

35.

Schultz

J. C.

Ososkie

J. N.

Fried

J. H.

Nelson

R. E.

Bardos

A. N.

(2002). Clinical supervision in public rehabilitation counseling settings. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 213–222.

36.

Sherman

S. G.

Leahy

M. J.

Del Valle

Anderson

C. A.

Tansey

Lui

(2014). Organizational and cultural factors that promote creative best practices in the public rehabilitation program: Findings from a four-state multiple case study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 41, 115–125.

37.

Tansey

Garske

(2007). Leadership in rehabilitation counseling: Considerations for the future. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 38(4), 4–10.

38.

Thielsen

V. A.

Leahy

M. J.

(2001). Essential knowledge and skills for effective clinical supervision in rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44, 196–208.