IJSP Number 2, 2020

23 4. PART III: FURTHER THINKING ABOUT SUPERVISION COMMONALITIES, ANCHORS, AND MECHANISMS I would like to think further here about the implications of relationship, interventions, and learning/re-learning for supervisory understanding, bringing together and extending material from Parts I and II. In doing so, let me first frame what follows within the hope and scope of therapist development. We as supervisors strive in all that we do to facilitate that very development: “Any and all supervision perspectives begin with the most fundamental conviction that supervisees have the potential for and are in need of further development” [7, p. 207]. Inmanet al. [89], based on their large-scale research review, concluded that supervisee development is indeed an important concept globally. Bernard and Goodyear [10] have even gone so far as to assert that development is supervision’s most important construct: “There is no way to supervise without understanding the developmental process in supervision” (p. 69). So much of therapist development appears to involve an ongoing process of Exposure → Reflection → Reorganization [90], [91], where the beginning therapist is repeatedly exposed to (the treatment situation through) practice, reflects on that practice, and reorganizes that practice based on continued exposure and reflection [40], [67]. Thus, therapist development— eminently experiential in nature [92] — seemingly invokes at least one change condition (exposure), one change process (reflection), and one change mechanism (reorganization) in its process of unfolding[8],[67]. I contend that we can conceptualize of supervision in similar fashion, where it synchronously maps onto the therapist development experience: Relationship → Reflection → Reorganization. Psychotherapy supervision has impact through the supervisor’s efforts to build a facilitative supervisory relationship, stimulate supervisee reflection, and accordingly stimulate supervisee reorganization [9]. Thus, supervisor action — eminently experientially focused — also invokes at least one change condition (relationship), one change process (reflection), and one change mechanism (reorganization) in its unfolding process of developmental facilitation [8], [67]. Table 12 captures the spirit of that supervisory action. We have here (a) the melding of a broader swath of core supervision commonalities (tables from Part I); (b) placed within the context of an elaborated learning-based supervisory model (Table 11); (c) that can also be easily ped onto the more complex conceptual models (Figures 2 and 3). Matters of intervention and learning/re-learning are, respectively, framed under Reflection and Reorganization because: (a) our supervisory interventions are primarily about stimulating reflection [93]; and (b) learning/re-learning itself is fundamentally a process of change [94], reorganization, with new learnings being absorbed, old learnings being modified, and those collective changes being integratively organized.