權力的不平等為督導關係特性之一。督導被賦予權力乃是透過「督導」這個角色位置，如：守門人。得受督導者感到焦慮，但是，督導權力也可透過提供受督導者諮商的方向、專業知識及支持而有正向的呈現。仍是以傳統集體文化為主的臺灣社會，督導關係中的權力議題常常是不被討論的，因為，師父－徒弟或是督導－受督導者關係中的權力階層的存在及權力的不平等是被視為理所當然的。這個研究目的在於從督導及受督導的觀點探討督導關係中督導權力的使用。研究的工具乃是使用以French及Raven（1959）的社會權力基礎理論（包含：專家權力、參照權力、法定權力、強制權力及獎賞權力）為本而發展出來的Rahim Leader Power問卷。210位包含兼職實習及駐地實習受督導者和來自161位實習機構機構督導及來自15個輔導諮商研究所的學校督導參與本研究。研究結果顯示：（1）受督導者認為機構督導及學校督導是用較多專家及法定權力而較少強制及獎賞權力；而督導則認為他們使用較多的強制及獎賞權力而較少專家及法定權力；（2）學校督導認為他們比機構督導使用更多獎賞權力，特別是針對駐地實習的受督導者；而機構督導則是對兼職實習及駐地實習的受督導者皆使用獎賞權力；和（3）兼職實習受督導者，比起駐地實習受督導者，認為他們的督導對他們使用更多的獎賞權力。文末將提供督導實務建議及未來研究方向。

Supervisory relationships are characterized by power disparities. Power is granted to supervisors through their roles as gatekeepers. Although it may provoke supervisees' anxiety, a supervisor's power can be constructively demonstrated through offering direction, knowledge and support to supervisees. In cultures characterized as collective, such as Taiwan, the power issue in supervisory relationships remains unrecognized because hierarchy and power differentials in master-apprentice relationships are expected and taken for granted. This study, as part of a large, funded research project, aimed to investigate supervisor use of power from the perspectives of both supervisors and supervisees in Taiwan. The Rahim Leader Power Inventory based on French and Raven's (1959) concept of the five types of social power (e.g., expert, referent, legitimate, coercive, and reward) was employed. The subjects consisted of 210 practicum and internship supervisees and 161 faculty and field-placement supervisors from 15 graduate counseling psychology programs and internship sites accredited by the Taiwan Guidance and Counseling Association. The results showed: (1) Compared to supervisor perception, supervisees perceived that both faculty and field placement supervisors used more expert and legitimate power and less coercive and reward power, and both faculty and field placement supervisors perceived themselves as using more coercive and reward power and less expert and legitimate power;(2) Faculty supervisors perceived themselves as using more reward power than field supervisors, particularly with field interns, while field supervisors perceived themselves as using reward power for both practicum and intern supervisees; and (3) Compared to intern supervisees, practicum supervisees perceived their supervisors as exerting more reward power. Implications for supervision and future research are provided.