Insights into Clinical Supervision with Dr. Rodney Goodyear

Dan is joined by Dr. Rodney Goodyear, an expert on Clinical Supervision.

This episode starts with Dan and Dr. Goodyear exploring the evolution and current state of clinical supervision in psychology, highlighting the importance of structured training, mentorship, and the supervisory relationship. Then, Dr. Goodyear shares the impact of international perspectives, and the necessity of clear contracts in supervision to enhance the learning process for supervisees, as well as the need for ongoing education and the development of a learning partnership framework to improve supervision practices.

Special Guest: Dr. Rod Goodyear

Fundamental of Clinical Supervision

International Interdisciplinary Conference on Supervision

🎞️ Video version of the show@PsychotherapyAppliedPsychology on YouTube
🛜 Check out the website: Listen to every episode on your podcast player of choice

Connect with Dan
☏ Leave a voice message on Speakpipe
🔗 LinkedIn
📬 TheAppliedPsychologyPodcast@gmail.com

🦋@danielwcox.bsky.social

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction
• 1:14 Journey Into Clinical Supervision
• 5:00 Creating a Supervision Video Series with Carl Rogers
• 11:00 Defining Clinical Supervision vs. Administrative Supervision
• 13:20 Memorable Supervisors: Best and Worst Experiences
• 20:00 Challenges and Timing of Supervision Training
• 25:00 Introducing the Learning Partnership Framework
• 34:00 Importance of Contracting in Supervision
• 40:00 Improving Supervision and Avoiding Common Pitfalls

Transcript

0:00

[Music] Broadcasting from the most beautiful city in the world, I'm your host, Dr. Dan Cox, a professor of counseling psychology at the University of British Columbia. Welcome to episode number 51 of Psychotherapy and Applied Psychology, where we dive deep with the world's leading applied psychology researchers to uncover practical insights, pull back the curtain, and hopefully have some fun along the way. If you find the show interesting, it'd be much appreciated if you shared it with someone you know who might enjoy it too. It's a great way to spread the word and keep the conversation going. Tey could be more excited to welcome one of the world's authorities on clinical supervision. My guest is a professor emeritus at the University of Redlands and the University of Southern California. He received the American Psychological Association's award for Distinguished Career Contributions to Education and Training and Psychology, as well as an award for the International Advancement of Psychotherapy from the Society for the Advancement of Psychotherapy. He's also a fellow in the American Psychological Association and the American Educational Research Association. In addition, he's the author of the Fundamentals of Clinical Supervision, which is now about to head into its seventh edition. In part one of our conversation about clinical supervision, we discussed the Learning Partnership Framework, the importance of contracting, supervisor preparation, supervisory ruptures, and much more. This episode begins with my guest talking about how we got into studying clinical supervision. So without further ado, it is my pleasure to welcome my very special guest, Dr. Rod Goodyear. My professors when I was in grad school, Dan Delaney and CH Patterson, each were independently writing about supervision that was really before much was going on. So it was interesting to have both of them doing that. And I really piqued my interest that I noticed that there wasn't much literature on it. And after I got into the field and started looking at areas, I wanted to pay attention to supervision really did emerge and kind of modeling my work on what they were doing and then extending it from there. And you know, it's just one thing led to another, which is kind of the situation I think were so many of us on faculties that we do one thing and that we meet people and have new ideas and we lead to other things. And so worked on several research projects with doctoral students that kind of got started. I know Elizabeth Holloway was doing some early work on interaction processes and pinments system. And so we wanted my students to do a dissertation in which we tracked interaction processes in supervision. And then I'm trying to think of sequencing here at some point I was brazen enough proposed to the counseling psychologist that I do a special issue on theories of supervision brazen because I was still pretty unknown and hadn't done much yet, frankly. And in the process of doing that issue, I realized that we really didn't have anything to show a supervision. And it was mindful of the glorious series, which you may be familiar with. Of course, of course. Yeah, we're glorious. Albert Ellis and Fritz Pearls and Carl Rogers. And so I wanted to do kind of a supervision version of that. So I, first of all, needed to find someone who's brave enough to be the supervisee. So Dick Hackney, who's Janine was Janine Bernard's husband, was brave enough to volunteer to do that. So I sent Carl Rogers a note and asking people he wanted to donate some time. And once he agreed to that, then I contacted other folks and it's like, listen, Carl Rogers is donating his time. Would you be willing to do the same? So we ended up with a pretty good set of folks, Irving Polster doing gestalt. Rogers, of course, with client centered a real prize with Ridolf X-Dine, who wrote the seminal book on supervision back in the 50s and then Albert Ellis and then Norm Kagan doing IPR. So Dick Hackney took his supervision, his therapy session to those people for supervision. And it turned out to be, it's a good series. I still use it. The technical quality is not great, but the content is good. And so with that, I got to know Dick and then through Dick, I got to know Janine who a few years later invited me to join her on authoring a book. And so the book came out in '92, it was one of the first of its kind. And so in some sense, it's kind of a good fortune of timing that we were there early on. And so continue to write that book in various editions. It's now being written up in the seventh edition and pleased to be able to do that. So that's kind of a very quick version of a 40-year history. There's been pretty exciting to me. I grabbed off my shelf. Here's my third edition of the book from when I was in graduate school. So maybe showing my own age, but I had to grab that off. I had to grab that off the shelf before this conversation. Thank you. And let me add another piece to that, which is about 12 years ago, I did a full bright in South Korea and spent the semester at Yonsei University. And really that there was just one of those enlightening experiences where I realized I'm embarrassing just to say it at this point aloud, but that we in the US weren't the center of the universe. There was some shells going on in the rest of the world that we could learn from. And so I started working a little bit with some Korean colleagues. And then shortly after that, Changming Duan at the University of Kansas was instrumental in connecting Carol Fowlender and me to colleagues in China. And for the last 10 years, we've been running a fairly large program. We've trained over a thousand supervisors in China under program sponsored by the clinical and counseling psychology registration system of the Chinese Psychological Society. So that was one of those career highlights. I mean, it understates it to say it was a career highlight. It's been really enormously satisfying to be part of that. And also through Maria Del Pilar-Gratio, so some connections in Latin America. We've got an edited book on Latin American supervision coming out too. So kind of to pull that together, the international connections over the last decade have really been a huge source of excitement to me. And it's really helped me understand what's universal about supervision and what's more specific to particular cultures and countries. So before we get too deep into it, when we're talking about clinical supervision or when you're talking about clinical supervision, what do you mean? Yeah, a good good question because I think sometimes the supervision gets conflated when we use the term generically. And I think that is a problem by the way that in a lot of community mental health settings in particular, there's administrative supervision that gets overlaid with clinical supervision, which is it's a challenge. So clinical supervision is focused on teaching and learning processes primarily. And the goal is to help a more junior member of the profession develop. Usually, I think there's some qualifiers to that. In other countries, it includes more senior members of the profession and it has some nuances that are important too. But it's a teaching learning process. And so when we're talking about administrative supervision where you're like a line supervisor in a clinic, your primary responsibility is to that agency or clinic to make sure it's running well. And if your supervisor isn't doing well, you might take different steps than in clinical supervision, where you'd want to take it to use those missteps and mistakes as an opportunity to learn and you have a different level of commitment. So I'm glad you raised that because it's kind of an ongoing tension and so many people wear both hats and try to sort those out, which is not always easy. Right. So could you tell me about the best clinical supervision or the best clinical supervisor or one of, you know, that you ever had? Well, that stretches way, way back. I think I think I did my internship at the UC Berkeley Counseling Center. And again, we're stretching many decades back. But Rich Beary was my supervisor. And I really learned so much from him, not only clinically, but as a mentor. And I think that that's an element that sometimes gets overlooked in supervision too. It's not, if your supervisor's invested in you developing professionally, it's not just about your clinical skills. And it's also about, your professional development generally. So Rich helped me make some career decisions. At that time was thinking I'd like to be a practitioner. And during supervision sessions, we talked about career options and what the best career path forward. And as a result of that, I really redirected my career planning. So Rich really stands out as kind of an example of the really excellent supervision for those reasons. What about the worst? The worst either, so you don't have to name names obviously, but sort of one of the either with it, you know, a specific anecdote experience you had or just general style or whatever. I've been pretty lucky. But again, we're stretching back many decades. When I was still a grad student, one of my supervisors treated it pretty casually. And really, I think personified what Mike Ellis talks about, synatic with supervision. He, you know, treated, the supervision was casual and you know, whether we actually met or not and whether we maintained the full hour. And it just didn't seem important to him. And so I would say that is kind of anchors the other ends. And boy, I hadn't thought of that in years. So yeah, I'm preparing for this. I was thinking about that night. I had a similar sort of experience once. And I remember sort of the anecdote in particular that I remember is the supervisor taking a phone call during supervision, you know, and of course, there's the emergency phone calls that one, you know, especially when you're in a clinical context, where there's, you know, a client who whatever, right? So like, obviously, that should supersede whatever we're doing in supervision. But it definitely was a personal phone call that was not an emergency. And I was like, okay, I see where this is in terms of importance. So Karen Kitsch, I was on a panel with Karen Kitsch in her years ago. And she had done kind of an informal study of what Mike is now calling inadequate supervision. And the anecdote that stood out for me was the supervisor who showed up for supervision. The supervisor said, listen, I've got to go pick up my dry cleaning, once you hop in the car with me. And we can talk while we drive. So, you know, the message about how important supervision is is pretty clear in that case. Yeah, for sure. So when you, do you think that the state of supervision overall has changed from when you started to where we are now? Oh, my yes. So I think, again, I think it was an accident of good timing that Janine invited me aboard. And we got the book launched about them because the field was just starting to emerge that the, you know, the first real supervision models were emerging in the late 70s and kind of started getting trapped with IPR Janine's discrimination model were both in like 1979. I think Cal Stoltenberg's developmental model was first articulated in '81. So there's certain excitement and growing momentum in those early years that started to pick up. And people were still assuming mostly I think that if you'd been a good therapist, you somehow would be a good supervisor. But I think the field was gradually starting to change. And of course, to me, the culmination in psychology anyway was the 2002 competency conference, which really particularly is supervision as a distinct area of professional competence that requires its own systematic training. So so in that period of time, it really did evolve. And you know, still evolving, even though we've now espoused that goal that you should be trained systematically. And APA's accreditation guidelines requires that Dr. Programs built in some supervision training. We still have a long way to go. And and for example, so many practitioners are master's level out of social work or counseling. They don't get supervision training. So so we still have a long way to go on that. But, but I think at least there's that sensitivity now, the stiffer than when I started. Yeah, I think so I I started graduate school in 2003. And my memory is sort of learning that and we took a supervision class. And my memory is that is learning that it used to not be required. There used to be no training on supervision. And just you know, the integrating of training and getting people to even think about or begin thinking about was just a big transition in the field. Yeah, and interestingly, there's been kind of a clinical and counseling psychology difference on that. Although that that's gradually been the race. But early on, it was the counseling psychology programs that had the supervision courses. And then as the field has become more sensitive to the fact that we all need that clinical psych nails adopted too. But this but and I would maintain this because counseling psychology is so often been embedded in schools and colleges of education. And I would maintain that so much of supervision is primarily an educational endeavor. And I want to talk about that with the framework I've been working on. So it's just an interesting between specialty difference, which again, I think has been largely erased. And you know, as you look at the literature now, which is this exploded, the clinical psychologists are doing so much of the work now too. Well, that you know, it was interesting as you're talking about this. One of the things that came up as I was prepping for this is I was thinking, okay, it's great. We have supervision training in graduate school. And part of me feels like we should have that training when you're five or 10 years into the profession. Because that's when you're really, you know, you have a bit more of a clear identity. But then and you're likely, and most likely you're engaging in more supervision. You know, I remember when I was in graduate school taking this supervision class, I mean, like, Jesus, I don't even know how to be a therapist yet. And you're training me how to do supervision. There's obvious reasons why we have it in graduate school, but just it just sort of seemed like, huh, wouldn't it be nice if we just had like a module five years from now or 10 years from now that we're focused on this? Yeah, well, that's such a great question about what the best way is to train supervisors. And you're right. I think capturing people while they're in grad school and you can ensure that they've got a course or something systematic structurally makes sense. But as you're saying, the students are still a little bit puzzled about how all this goes together. You know, I teach doctoral level courses on this and and you know, one good part of that of course is that the students at least come out and powered to get more out of their own supervision. So they get that. But yeah, then they have to wait a few years before they're actually doing it and wouldn't it be nice to maybe do a refresher course or something. But we just don't, you know, we're doing well to get people to get any training right now. But wouldn't it be great if we had some longer term structures that reinforced it in some different ways? It does make me wonder and sort of think about what percentage of continuing education activities are focused on clinical supervision, you know. Yeah, and yeah, so in California to retain your licenses, psychologists and do supervision, you need to participate in six hours of CE every two years. And so that's been so CE has been one avenue to do it. I think it's nice as a refresher CE by itself, I think, is it's better than nothing for someone who's not had a formal course. But it's kind of it's inadequate because you get because you know, we choose CE courses by what's interesting to us. Okay, so we'll go look at this aspect of supervision and this workshop and this on another and we, you know, there's not a coherence to it. It doesn't build, you know, doesn't build on each other as it's a progresses. So CE is inadequate, but it's certainly better than nothing and I think it's good for as a refresher. So if you have had the structured training, I think it's value added that way. For sure. So one of the things that you've you've alluded to this. So in your upcoming edition of your clinical supervision book, you're adding this new section on the learning partnership framework. Yeah. So I think that that would be helpful for you to sort of talk about that a little bit and that would probably give us a structure for a lot of our conversation. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you. Yeah. This is something I've been working on over the last year and it's really evolved a lot out of my training in China. I teach two cohorts a year of, and those are practitioners who who have experienced this clinicians who are coming in for systematic training. And as I've taught that course, I've been, you know, supervision is such a complex process. How to make sense of it? How to create a structure that people can kind of grab onto and have a map, if you will. And so the framework is based, first of all, in the notion that supervision is primarily a teaching learning process. And I want to do one quick caveat on that. That the rigid proctor in England talks about supervision having three functions, normative, formative and restorative. So the normative part are the parts where we monitor the supervisees adherence to ethical standards. Are they getting case notes written up or the paperwork done? Kind of the administrative tasks. There's also the restorative part, which I think there's some increasing attention to, especially with things like trauma and form supervision. And in other countries where supervision is career long, I think the educational part becomes less salient and the restorative part just kind of a safe space to sit down and kind of get renewed takes a sentence. So, you know, that's kind of the normative and restorative parts are, I think, are important. I think when we're dealing with the majority of the supervision occurs, at least in this country, is with students and pre-licensure trainees. And so I think for them, the developmental part, the teaching learning part really is ascendant. And so that's what this framework is about. And so essentially, the assumptions in this framework are that, first of all, that the relationship is foundational for everything, the supervision relationship, that unless you have trust in your supervisor that you can come in and confess your mistakes and not be, not feel criticized or punished for them, you're not going to be very disclosing about what you're doing. You're going to be, you're not going to be freed up to be reflective about your work and all those things. So, so the relationship is really at the core of all this. And so one set of supervision interventions are focused on the relationship and maintaining that. And of course, the other part, the other interventions are what I would call clinical teaching, the teaching focused interventions like providing feedback and being a role model and facilitating reflection. So, so I would maintain then that those are the two kinds of, in broad strokes, the two kinds of interventions that supervise your shoes. And they're not independent. So, if I give feedback to a supervisor and you know they hear discriticism and react to it, I've moved from a teaching focused intervention then to the relationship focus to kind of process what's going on between the two of us to repair, you know, anything that needs to be repaired, to then move back to the teaching. So, they all work together, I think conceptually those useful to think about, you know, relationship focus versus teaching focused interventions. And, and the other thing that the framework does is differentiate between interventions and how we get information about what our supervisors are doing. So, another cluster and the framework is, is that that, you know, do we rely on self-report of supervisees, which is actually what most supervisors do. And, and what are the limitations of that? Do we, do we directly observe our supervisees work? And if so, how do we do live observations? Do we do video recordings? Do we get client feedback, which I think is a best practice that's not, not often used? So, so those kinds of things, I think again conceptually is important to separate from the interventions, even though they kind of go together. So, if a supervisee brings me in a recording, that's a source of information about what they're doing, but then I'll also do some kind of intervention around that. I might invite reflection on their process and so on. So, you know, in, in actual practice, those things get conflated, the getting the information of the intervention. So, what I've tried to do is create a framework, or at least conceptually you can understand how one, one is a little bit separate from the other and, and, and how that can be useful to you to know. So, I've talked about three aspects of the framework, and how you get information, the two kinds of interventions, relationship, focus, and teaching focused. There's also conceptualization that, you know, we work with clients, we, you know, we have treatment plans, we conceptualize what's going on with them and so on, at the same thanks to supervision, and it has a teaching learning focus rather than treatment, but we develop, you know, an understanding of the supervisees, training needs, what development level they are, our model of therapy is going to inform how we think about what they need and, and how we're going to intervene. So, and, and I would maintain there's two kinds of conceptualizations, and there's conceptualization about those training needs, and then there's kind of the conceptualization of the, the relationship and, and how it unfolds. And so, and then the last part of it are the learning objectives, which are competencies, and kind of trying to draw this as a verbal, a verbal picture, that, that these are all interactive and influence each other that, so that in the model, you know, how we understand the supervisee and their training needs, how we understand our current relationship with them, interacts them with the information we're taking in through self-report, video review, whatever, that informs the interventions we make, either relationship-focused or teaching, and all of that, you know, and the conceptualization is driven in part by the, our understanding of the competencies. So, hope that wasn't overwhelming as I try, try to do that in a verbal way for what's, it's kind of, you see the graph, it looks, it's got lots of arrows going. So, in a way, and this is something as I was preparing for this, that I had this, this, I did have a little bit of an overwhelming feeling, not just in, but just in general because I'm thinking, you know, as a clinical supervisor, I'll let it back up a little bit. So, you know, as a therapist, there's a lot going on, right? You're paying attention to a lot with your client, and at the end of the day, I don't want to say this is simple, but there is a little bit of, you know, I want them to get better, whatever that means. So, but with supervision, what I found as I was preparing for this, is I started my head swam a little bit in thinking like, man, what is my objective? Like, what is the goal here? What's the focus? Because it feels more diffused even than just working with a client, which is extremely challenging and often nebulous, that like, because, because, you know, you're adding an extra layer, because still at the end of this supervision layer is, your supervisor is working with clients. So, it just, it adds an extra layer to it. And so, I was sort of feeling that as I was preparing for this. Yeah. Yeah. And so, a couple of thoughts. One is, you know, it seems to me that our foremost obligation ethically is to make sure that the clients are getting the treatment they need, and the bad things aren't happening as a result of what our supervisors are doing. However, that obligation exists only because our supervisors are there to learn, and they need, you know, and they need to be working with the clients to learn. So, again, it takes us back to the core, the core purpose is teaching. Client protection kind of evolves out of that need. So, both are true. But, again, it's the teaching function that drives that. And then the other thought I had as you were talking, and I'd left out, is I've got several assumptions that, that undergar the model one is that, that all supervision should be driven by a contract. And, because you were talking about what the goals are, I think, you know, the goals are going to depend on the particular context and the supervising and whatnot. But that ought to be talked about in your very first session. So, those conversations need to happen. And I don't know if you're familiar with what Slavic and Weakland and Fish, what I've discovered lately is that there's some generational differences on who influenced this when. So, when I was a student, I was very taken by the Palo Alto group in what Slavic Weakland and Fish, and their interaction with you of behavior and, and, and what they were known for, and their book, Pragmatic Subheumon Communication, was the saying, you can't not communicate, that, you know, even if you're sitting there silent with someone, you're giving them cues non-verbally about what your relationships about with them. And I would, you know, to kind of extrapolate from that, I would maintain you can't not have a contract and supervision because anytime we enter a relationship with another person, we come in with our expectations about what I'm going to be doing in that relationship, what the other person should be doing, and so on. And if those remain unspoken, which is too often the case, then almost invariably someone's going to violate the other person's expectations and cause issues. And, you know, and it, you know, I've always thought that the, the aspirational goal and supervision should be that there are no surprises other than what the client may bring. So, you know, it's aspirational, we'll never get there, but, but I think that begins with the contract that you start off with. It's not just the document, but the conversation you have around it, about how we're going to work together, what I expect of you, what you expect of me, I think, and what our training goals are. And also, I think supervises, because they have less power, are less likely to address issues of, you know, when there's conflict or they disagree with you, to bring that up. And, and, and I think kind of a related issue is multi-cultural issues, which I didn't address earlier. I lumped those under the relationship competencies. So, so I think the contracting process is an opportunity to just talk about, you know, listen, there're going to be some times when you don't agree with everything I'm doing, or maybe I inadvertently offend you. I sure hope we have a chance to talk about that. And, and I promise that if that, you know, if you raise that, that I'll, I'll listen and be respectful of your, your point of you. And, and the same thing, the same parallel conversation, I think, should occur around diversity, that, you know, to acknowledge differences between myself and that person sitting across from me, and acknowledge that that, you know, on the one hand, is going to be a strength. At the other, on the other hand, it, it maximizes the possibility that there may be moments when we don't see eye to eye, or there's some differences that need to be talked about. And, I hope you bring it up. So, I'm kind of going on at some point, but I do think those conversations, they're so important, and they begin in the very first session. And, and the data show that, you know, I might yell us in his group, looking at inadequate supervision. There've been a couple of studies showing, at least in this country, about half of the supervisors out there, and not doing, not operating out of written contracts, and probably fewer than that are actually talking about them, which I think is the heart of it. So, I'm sorry, so I went on, on to some of that. That was really good, actually, because I think that that that helps to anchor a little bit this idea, and I'm so the idea being that from the outset, and then probably over time as well, but right at the outset, to work to get on the same page in terms of what are our learning objectives, and how are we going to work? And so, a contractor talked about sort of a somewhat formalized sort of written version of that, but these come to figuring out, what are the competencies that we're going to prioritize working on in our time together, is that right? Yeah, exactly, and, and I would maintain that, prior to that meeting, the supervisor ought to receive a, the written contract, and be the evaluation form you'll be using, because that should specify the competencies expected, so that that person comes to the meeting, having thought about those things, and that should drive the conversation. And if that's the first time you've met each other, you're pretty much in the situation of having to take the supervisees word for it, just to what their strengths and weaknesses are, and that then, well, you know, your perceptions are going to change as you start watching them work. So, so, you know, we talk about the contract and being a living document, that whether we, you know, whether we rewrite it physically or not, the agreement about what we're doing together is going to change, as we get to know each other, and, and so they get modified. And, and by the way, one other thought, while we're talking about this, is I keep using the word contract and what I, I, there's some organizations that really resist that because of its legalistic complications. So, when I say contract, other, you know, agreement or some other term is perfectly suitable, but whatever you call it, it's important. So, one of the things that is clear here is that the supervisor or the organization, the, the will have put some thought in on the front end in terms of what is the, what we're going to sort of prioritize working on, what you're going to be evaluated on, to give that to the person, and then to then turn that into a conversation and living document as you progress. And actually, now that I'm thinking about it, because having this conversation, making me think back by own experiences, that, that that was, you know, sort of in the best, the best supervision, which is what I had on internship, was that that is what happened. And it would, you know, as we went through, either something that I would come to my supervisor saying that I felt, you know, oh, man, I have no idea how to do this or can we listen to this part of this tape because I stunk or something that she would say, you know, in a much kinder way, hey, you really stink at this, but it was, and then it would become a one of the, you know, one or two or three priority areas for our next, you know, four or five, six meetings, right? That would then become sort of a central focus that we would work on that specific thing that I stunk at. But it was on the front end though, there was a clear agreement and a clear evaluation form that I had. Yeah. Yeah. And by the way, right now I'm working on the chapter on diatic supervision as I'm working on the next edition, and I've been thinking a lot about this that, you know, the same Bridget Proctor that I mentioned earlier with the kinds of purposes of supervision, the normative form, it had been restorative, also talks about contracts. And I've been, so I've liked what she said, but basically there's the kind of contract that I was talking about, which governs the entire process together, but she also talks about session level contracts, which would be the agenda setting when you begin a session, and then to kind of riff on what you were talking about when things, I think episodically that you think of the supervision sessions have little episodes with the beginning and ending point, or that beginning and ending point can stretch across sessions. But, you know, as you're, you know, the example you gave, something comes up as you watch a video, you know, that kind of as a marker then for an episode to begin, and Proctor, we talk about that as kind of a micro contract, it's like, okay, this just came up, let's work on this for a little bit. And then, you know, then that has a natural course that kind of concludes. One of the things, so I had in here, when I was, as I was coming up with questions and preparing, I had written down to ask you, why does lots of supervision suck? That's what I had that written down. But, you know, in this extremely anecdotal, based on this conversation, but I think that this perhaps is not so insightful. But one of the reasons supervision sometimes sucks is because there isn't much preparation on the end of the supervisor that what we're talking about in terms of, right, the having that, having that documentation, giving it to the person ahead of time, and then based on that, having a conversation with the supervisor that, you know, that's very different than sitting down with your supervisor the first time, and then meter them either just sort of going, or them saying, what do you want to talk about today? You know, like that, that having some of that work done on the front end and putting some thoughtfulness into it on the front end really is worth so much in terms of the experience of the supervisor. Yeah. No, absolutely. And I think, I think too much supervision probably is done by people showing, this person is showing up for supervision, and then you try to figure out what, what, what should we talk about today? And then negotiated on the spot as opposed to putting the responsibility on the supervisor to come to the session, having identified some questions they'd like to work on, which, so Judith Beck has a structure she's proposed for CBT supervision, which I'm adapting it for the next edition of our book, because I think so much of it's not specific to CBT that, and so she talks about, you know, starting with, you know, for a session with a check-in, like just how are things going for you? And then moving into an agenda setting session so that the supervisor should have been thinking ahead at time about what they want to be working on, but then that agenda setting would be, okay, so what, what should we be paying attention to today? The supervisor has a voice in that because things come up, and these are learning opportunities, something that's puzzling or challenging, and of course, we want to talk about that. At the same time, we, you know, we as supervisors should have a longer term view, so there's a continuity. So I think that's one of the, one of the tensions is like, how do we be responsive? How do we remain responsive to what the supervisor needs in that moment or in that week, versus continuing to develop toward particular goals? But I think those things get talked about during the agenda setting, here's what we're going to do, and then you move into the working part of the session. And, and by the way, she does something which I think is great, which is at the end of the session, the last five minutes or so is like, okay, so I just want to check in with you, are we doing the kinds of things you'd hope to? Is there something we should have done different today? Are you getting what you need? And I think to the extent that we as supervisors do that routinely, we head off those bigger moments that are problematic, and we have a chance to address, address the issues as they come up. So you talk about the relationship mattering a lot, and we talked about that a little bit for between the supervisor and the supervisor. So where do you think those that line is between supervision and therapy, you know, or how do you think about that in terms of the relationship? You know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, yeah, so I think this gets into, you know, what the competencies are that we're training for. That's a wrap on the first part of our conversation. As I noted at the top, it would be much appreciated if you spread the word to anyone else who you think might enjoy the show. Until next time.[Music]