IJSP Number 1, 2019

11 It’s been said, and let me mention three quotes here, that: “Development is endemic to supervision” [11p. 44], that “…supervisee development is considered to be an important concept globally…” [3, p. 65], that “…the most powerful idea in supervision…comes down to two words: Supervisees develop” [12, p. 207].We do supervision because we believe in that very possibility, the high probability of supervisee development, and we resolutely and unequivocally believe in the hope and promise of supervision to make that development ever more likely. But with developmental understanding has also come an expanded view of just what supervisee development means. Yes, we strive to stimulate our supervisees’ skill or competency development. But we, too, strive to help our supervisees establish a therapist identity or sense of Practice Self [13].And in helping them do that, we have increasingly come to see our role as being one of developmental accommodation. As Michael Carroll [14] puts it, supervisors accommodate, not supervisees. So whatever the form of supervision, we all have therapist development as our guiding objective, and we all strive to tailor or customize supervision to best meet our supervisees’ respective learning needs [15]. Psychotherapy supervisors are foremost developmental accommodationists . Let’s next label that which we hope to result from supervision as Output— capturing those critical outcomes that we hope to trans-theoretically see as the supervision experience unfolds. I once more ask you to hold on to this idea of Output, because its facets, which you see reflected in the bottom panel of the Figure, will again feature prominently in our generic supervision model. And now let us turn our full attention to the GMPS figure. Analogized from the seminal work of David Orlinsky and Kenneth Howard and their generic psychotherapy model [16], [17], [18], what you see there is the generic model of psychotherapy supervision [1]. The Input part of the model reflects much of the supervision as system aspect of supervision, giving particular emphasis to what the supervisor and supervisee bring to the supervision situation and other setting and social influences on that situation. Input variables largely smooth the way for supervision, or can do just the opposite. The Process part of the model reflects much of the supervision as relationship aspect of supervision. The crucial variables of Process, present across all systems of supervision, are: (a) the contract or agreement between supervisee and supervisor; (b) supervision operations (or the cycle of intervention that gets enacted between supervisee and supervisor); (c) the supervision bond; (d) supervisee and supervisor self-relatedness, referring to the openness and non- defensiveness of the involved parties; (e) in-session impact, referring to supervisory session effects; and (f) temporal patterns, recognizing the effect of time itself on the supervision experience. For example, how might our earliest supervision sessions differ from those that occur much later in the supervision relationship?