IJSP Number 7, 2025

International Journal of Supervision in Psychotherapy, Number 7, 2025 Page | 17 to a negative supervisory process (e.g., through being highly defensive or through unintentional mistakes [49, 50]), we accentuate the supervisor here because: (a) being in the power position, supervisors have the responsibility to get supervision started off most favorably and to accordingly accommodate supervisees’ developmental learning needs in the process; and (b) case examples and research indicate that, when supervision goes awry, supervisors often fail to fulfill those fundamental responsibilities at supervision’s outset and over its course or/and use their power in a problematic, even destructive and abusive, way [44, 45]. Some supervisor factors that can contribute to the enactment of such a negative supervision process include the following: lack of training/supervision in how to supervise, lacking the needed interest and desire to supervise (yet doing it anyway), being overly task oriented, laissez faire, or having a stress-inducing supervision approach, being a personality or theoretical mismatch with the supervisee, or personal impairment [5, 42]. Research down through the decades suggests that, where supervision is characterized by “stressful involvement” (i.e., a supervisor provides supervision that is stressful for and unsupportive of the supervisee), supervisees suffer and can suffer greatly, that being especially so for novice or beginning supervisees [51-54]. That suffering, according to the superb longitudinal research conducted by Orlinsky, Rønnestad, and their colleagues [51-54], becomes particularly pronounced where a supervisee “double traumatization” transpires: an unencouraging, unsupportive, even harsh, supervisor allows a novice supervisee to see a highly troubled client --- who is well beyond their therapeutic capabilities --- and, then, accordingly provides a supervision experience that is highly critical, unsupportive, disconfirming, even punitively-laced. Thus, the novice supervisee is traumatized not only because of working with a highly troubled client who is well beyond their ability to help, but they are traumatized yet again by the discouraging, dismissive, hurtful way in which they are treated by their supervisor during the supervision process. Contrary to experiencing the “best of both worlds” (i.e., being able to help their client and being helped to do so by their supervisor), this beginning supervisee instead experiences the “worst of both worlds” and can understandably be traumatized as a result. Figure 4 captures some of those most critical factors that are increasingly apt to create such a negative supervision process. What is reflected here is this: de-emphasis on, dismissal of, the importance of the supervisor-supervisee alliance, a consequent weakening or scuttling of the very foundation that stimulates development of those three relationship pathways, and a weakened if not foundering effect on the outcomes for both supervisee and client. This would be an unfolding of the supervision process at its worst. Just as we need to understand the dynamics of positive supervision process, so too do we need to understand the dynamics of negative supervision process. The CSRM provides one such vision for negative process understanding. 4. CONCLUSION Models merit scrutiny, models need revision, models require research. We have offered some revisions to the CSRM. Although first presented in 2015, the CSRM has evolved, we have wished to capture and add to that evolution here, and we have wished to explain our reasons for doing so. Circa 2025, the CSRM still provides a trans-theoretical