Supervision of pre-licensed clinicians (PLCs) is an essential part of clinical training programs, designed to support PLCs as they hone their skills and ensure ethical practice. Despite lack of unanimity regarding core elements of effective and ethical supervision (Rousmaniere et al., 2016; Watkins, 2020), there is broad consensus and empirical evidence that supports the Supervisory Working Alliance (SWA) playing a key role in effective supervision (Apostol et al., 2025; Bordin, 1983; Watkins, 2020). This alliance is central to the process and outcomes of supervision (Watkin, 2018) and can determine the level of supervisee self-disclosure of clinically relevant challenges the supervisee is facing in their clinical practice (Mehr et al., 2010). Self-disclosure, as discussed in this article, refers to the deliberate sharing of personal information, experiences, thoughts, and feelings of the supervisee that may be relevant to their clinical work, development as a professional, or the supervisory working alliance. A poor SWA will negatively impact the supervisee’s ability to self-disclose, which is often a primary factor of less effective supervision (Chircop Coleiro et al., 2023; Ladany et al., 1996). Without vulnerable disclosure of clinical, professional, and self-of-the-therapist challenges, supervisees are unable to address clinically relevant issues and supervisors risk isolating supervisees in their journey of clinical growth.

Although clinical supervision is a core aspect of clinical training and gatekeeping for the profession, the process and contexts of supervision include several challenges for both PLCs and supervisors. PLCs depend on supervisors to provide beneficial supervision and training, as well as approving their clinical hours needed for graduation or licensure. This dependence may lead supervisees to refrain from sharing personal experiences, clinical struggles, or other issues that are negatively impacting their work with clients (Mehr et al., 2010). The SWA and supervisee disclosure become more complex when we consider the intersectionality of gender, race, culture, hierarchal structures, and the power dynamics that are inherent in clinical supervision (Green & Dekkers, 2010; McKibben et al., 2019). Added to this, the complexities of dual relationships that PLCs experience in training programs with their faculty members further convolute the relationship.

Along with supervisees, faculty supervisors in CMFT training programs face various challenges, some of which may negatively affect their work with supervisees. Graduate faculty often carry heavy workloads made up of teaching, research, advising, service, and administrative responsibilities. Typical teaching includes two to four classes per semester, which may include teaching a practicum. In some cases, clinical supervision is expected by faculty but is not considered part of their teaching load. CMFT faculty are expected to teach and supervise at a high level with students who have diverse expectations, needs, abilities, and learning styles. Even with expectations differing across institutions, faculty often are held to high expectations regarding research productivity, framed as “publish or perish,” which creates pressure to focus on grant writing, conducting empirical research, and publishing in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. Although CMFT faculty generally report positive job satisfaction, especially regarding teaching responsibilities (Matheson & Rosen, 2012; Viers & Blieszner, 2004), pressures related to work-family balance and tenure or promotion may pull their attention away from supervision, potentially reducing their responsiveness to supervisees’ needs, decreasing awareness of power dynamics, and straining the SWA.

Given the multiple levels of power present in this supervisory relationship, academic structures that create high expectations, and intersecting contextual factors in both the supervisor and supervisee, applying a feminist perspective is needed to ethically navigate the complexities that arise in the supervisory process. As such, the purpose of this paper is to advance the application of a feminist perspective to clinical supervision and offer a feminist-informed supervisor ‘way of being’ model that addresses the complexities of the supervisor’s and supervisee’s identities and the interplay between them. With this, we assert it is not the supervisor’s responsibility to create the personal and professional growth needed for pre-licensed clinicians; however, the supervisor is responsible for facilitating a context in which supervisee growth can occur, which involves acknowledging their power, being open to the supervisee’s influence and willing to make appropriate adjustments to their approach, and empowering their supervisees by hearing and validating their experiences. We begin with a descriptive case vignette that exemplifies piece by piece the complexities and inherent power differentials present in supervisory relationships within academia. Drawing upon the authors’ and others’ experiences as both supervisor and supervisee, this vignette is a composite of supervisory experiences crafted to focus on the contextual factors, dual relationships, and the supervisor’s way of being that may influence the SWA, supported by literature addressing these issues. Furthermore, in presenting this case we highlight the complex power dynamics associated with contextual factors and dual relationships and aim to bring awareness to the difficulties that can arise for the supervisor and supervisee if not addressed. We also provide points of reflection related to SWAs that promote appropriate and essential supervisee growth, particularly through self-disclosure, in the context of CMFT graduate training programs.

Case Vignette

Julia Gomez is a 25-year-old cisgender, Latina woman. She comes from a Catholic family that immigrated to the United States from Mexico three years before she was born. She is currently pursuing a master’s degree in a clinical mental health field and is in her first clinically active semester. She has been providing therapeutic services to the Sanders family for a month to address the parents’ complaints of behavioral issues with their preteen daughter, Elizabeth. The Sanders, a White, middle-class, cisgender family, have recently stated that Elizabeth’s behavioral issues have worsened since starting therapy, as she is reportedly talking back, refusing to do chores, and sneaking out of the house. As the parents’ complaints of Elizabeth’s behavior have increased, Julia has found herself struggling to make progress in the case.

As a requirement of her academic program, Julia meets with a supervisor weekly to review relevant case concerns and evaluate her clinical development. An additional component of her supervision experience involves receiving an evaluation from her supervisor and a letter grade for her practicum course. Her supervisor, Dr. Thomas Martin, is a White, middle-class, cisgender man in his forties. In addition to being her clinical supervisor, Dr. Martin is the program director, her assigned advisor, and the instructor of a theory class that Julia will take in the next year of her program. Dr. Martin values the opportunity to build relationships with his students in each of these roles and strives to balance the expectations of academia along with his desire to be an authentic and present mentor. During their first supervision session, Julia expressed to Dr. Martin that she was struggling to make progress with the Sanders but minimized those struggles as a lack of experience with her chosen model of treatment and asked for help implementing the model. What Julia did not disclose was that she was having difficulty building rapport with Elizabeth and understanding her perspective, while also trying to respond to the parents’ concerns. Although Julia was unsure as to why she was struggling with this specifically, she recognized that her family history and other contextual factors played a significant role in how she was interacting with and perceiving the Sanders family.

Supervisory Working Alliance

The SWA serves as a primary vehicle for development and change in supervisees (Lampropoulos, 2003; Nicholas & Goodyear, 2020; Park et al., 2019). However, for growth to occur, the SWA must provide space and encouragement for self-reflection and disclosure (Calvert et al., 2020). Focusing on building a SWA that prioritizes the personhood of the supervisor and supervisee can increase feelings of supervisee safety in supervision (Beinart, 2014), fostering the necessary environment for self-disclosure and ultimately increasing the supervisee’s level of self-efficacy (Apostol et al., 2025; Lohani & Sharma, 2023). This safe environment, paired with increased self-efficacy and self-awareness of the supervisee from a strong SWA, lead to effective supervision that is categorized by transformation of the supervisee and positive client outcomes (Lohani & Sharma, 2023).

A further examination of the SWA by Zhu and colleagues (2021) concluded that cultural humility is an essential element in building an effective and safe SWA. Wilcox and colleagues (2023) support this by finding that a higher supervisor rating by the PLC regarding cultural humility is tied to an overall more positive SWA. Helpful cultural supervisory experiences include having the supervisor engage in learning related to multicultural issues, as well as acknowledging, making space for, and considering how culture and intersectionality impact the various participants in the supervision process (Wilcox et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2021).

Case Continuation: Supervisory Working Alliance

During their initial supervision meeting, following brief introductions and a review of Julia’s goals for supervision, Dr. Martin and Julia began discussing her clinical work, including her caseload and conceptualization of current cases. Julia expressed in her goals that she would like help with self-of-the-therapist issues but was not specific as to what issues. She was hesitant to be vulnerable with Dr. Martin, as this was her first clinical supervision experience with him, and she had not had much interaction with him since he spoke with her cohort as program director during their orientation to the program. As supervision continued throughout the semester, Julia continued to feel hesitant to address self-of-the-therapist issues with Dr. Martin and prioritized addressing case conceptualization and intervention questions while minimizing her personal struggles. Julia often felt that supervision was a chore or another place where she needed to perform, much like in other academic settings. She knew the supervisory relationship she was developing with Dr. Martin was not meeting her needs, but she was unsure how to address this with Dr. Martin, or whether her concerns with the supervisory alliance and personal struggles would be understood and validated.

Dr. Martin also felt distance and hesitancy from Julia as they began supervision. He hoped that as supervision continued, her hesitancy would diminish, and Julia would reveal more complex and clinically relevant personal issues for them to address. Dr. Martin was reluctant to prematurely inquire about Julia’s background and life experiences outside of her clinical work, as he was worried that would bring about too much discomfort as they developed their supervisory alliance. However, without acknowledgment of her personhood and the various aspects of her identity, Julia continued to not self-disclose and began to feel that her relationship with Dr. Martin was not a place of safety (Wilcox et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2021). Ultimately, Julia continued to struggle making progress with the Sanders family due to withholding clinically relevant self-of-the-therapist issues that were impacting her work (Lohani & Sharma, 2023).

Issues of Power in Supervision

Supervision takes place within a hierarchical structure with inherent differences in power and influence between the supervisor and supervisee. Power that is unrecognized, unaddressed, or unrestrained could have devastating impacts on the SWA and overall effectiveness of supervision. One such impact that has been studied is the lack of supervisee disclosure of clinically relevant client and personal concerns (Ladany et al., 1996; Mehr et al., 2010). Without intentional actions taken to address power dynamics in the SWA by the supervisor, a supervisee may feel a lack of emotional safety, limiting both the supervisee’s ability to self-disclose and the effectiveness of the SWA (Apostol et al., 2025; Ladany et al., 1999; Mehr et al., 2010). Mehr and colleagues (2010) discovered that a majority of supervisees withheld clinically relevant information from their supervisors. Common content withheld included professional inadequacies, personal life concerns, concerns of supervisor’s perceptions of the supervisee, and negative supervision experiences. Additionally, supervisees reported their reasons for nondisclosure being deference, perceived negative consequences, and impression management (Apostol et al., 2025; Mehr et al., 2010), all of which are arguably connected to the power differential between the supervisor and supervisee. Additional findings support this, indicating that supervisees often do not self-disclose due to perceived unimportance of the information, belief that the information is too personal, or a poor alliance with the supervisor (Ladany et al., 1996). Ultimately, there are many reasons why a supervisee would refrain from disclosing challenges in supervision; however, we argue that non-self-disclosure is rooted in issues of power, some of which arise from supervisor and supervisee contextual factors (Apostol et al., 2025; Hernández et al., 2009; Hernández & McDowell, 2010).

Case Continuation: Contextual Factors

Although it is vital for PLCs’ development to disclose when they are struggling to make progress in a case, social identities and power dynamics may inhibit supervisees’ sense of safety to self-disclose (Apostol et al., 2025). Contextual factors, such as gender and age, are primary examples of how power may impact the SWA and supervisee self-disclosure (Nelson et al., 2006). In the case of Julia, the contextual differences between her and Dr. Martin played a role in her hesitancy to disclose vulnerabilities to him. By living in a patriarchal society, men are granted unearned and inordinate power over women (MacKinnon, 1988). This power is amplified by Dr. Martin’s seniority over Julia in clinical experience, authority in the training program, and age, leaving Julia feeling diminished in her power to influence the SWA they are building.

In addition to gender and age, race and culture impact the power dynamic that is present in the supervisory relationship. Julia recognized that her own culture and family history are impacting her clinical work with the Sanders family. However, due to differences in race and culture between her and Dr. Martin, as well as the lack of discussion on the impact of these contextual factors in supervision, Julia feels hesitant to bring it up. Although detrimental to the progress of the Sanders family case, Julia’s hesitation to self-disclose is understandable for two reasons. First, Julia comes from a hierarchical culture that emphasizes authority and respect (Díaz-Guerrero, 1975). She noticed that when working with the Sanders family, she often struggled to give space for Elizabeth’s perspective, instead allowing more room for the parents to express their frustrations with Elizabeth without being challenged. This led to a rupture in the therapeutic alliance between Julia and Elizabeth, leaving Julia feeling stuck in her work with the family. Since Dr. Martin is of a different cultural and racial background than Julia, Julia worries that Dr. Martin will be unable to understand how her background is impacting her work, or worse, will judge that her bias makes her unfit to be a therapist.

Second, Julia’s reluctance to self-disclose to Dr. Martin can be understood when looking at the context of power and racial discrimination in the United States. Discrimination for Latines affects every aspect of their daily life, including work prospects, educational outcomes, access to healthcare, and their mental and emotional well-being (Ayón & Becerra, 2013; Findling et al., 2019; Torres et al., 2011). The effects of this pervasive discrimination can be intensified for immigrant families due to polarizing political discourse, violent deportations, and inhumane practices at the United States border in recent years (Ayón & Becerra, 2013; Cheatham & Roy, 2023). Since Julia is not only Latina, but also comes from an immigrant family, she is hesitant to self-disclose to Dr. Martin how her culture may be impacting her case conceptualization and treatment with this family, as she is worried about how he may respond to the disclosure of her family background and history. Her fear is compounded due to past microaggressions she has experienced from people with similar backgrounds to Dr. Martin.

On the other hand, though Dr. Martin does not share cultural experiences with Julia, he is aware of discrimination toward Latines in America. He believes he has no personal bias towards her culture and strives to exhibit this by not treating Julia differently than other students. However, he continues to not bring up the topic of their different identities out of his perceived respect for her autonomy with what may be a sensitive subject, as he fears this would create even further distance between them in their supervisory relationship.

Dual Relationships

While supervision includes an extensive process of evaluation and gatekeeping (Russell et al., 2007), it is also an intimate and collaborative training experience (Stargell et al., 2020). These two dynamics, which may often create tension, require a high level of clarity regarding the role of each party in supervision, including their respective responsibilities and how conflicts or remediation will be handled. For example, the evaluation process inherent in supervision can increase PLC anxiety, specifically in gatekeeping situations, possibly to the point at which the PLC’s level of anxiety impedes their clinical performance and capacity to learn (Ellis et al., 2015; Lambie et al., 2023). However, when the supervisor is also the PLC’s professor, major advisor, committee member, and/or research mentor etc., as seen especially in couple, marriage, and family therapy (CMFT) academic programs, it can be increasingly difficult to clarify and maintain roles for supervision.

Biaggio and colleagues (1997) compare the therapist-client relationship to faculty-subordinate relationships, describing ways in which each power holding member of the relationship rewards, disapproves, coerces, or persuades the other. Although similar to the therapist-client relationship, faculty-subordinate relationships are often characterized by unavoidable dual relationships (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016), leaving students/supervisees often uncomfortable in their relationship or at worst discriminated against (Biaggio et al., 1997; Kitchener, 1988). Though not yet studied, it could also be argued that there are benefits to dual relationships between supervisors and supervisees in academic settings. For example, multiple roles provide more opportunities to deepen the mutual trust and respect of mentor-mentee relationships that can provide enrichment far beyond clinical training and flourish into life-long bonds (Barnett et al., 2002). However, Kolbert and colleagues (2002) found that faculty members that serve in dual roles are often unaware of students’ negative perceptions of these dual relationships increasing the risk of unfair treatment and lack of supervisee self-disclosure in supervision relationships with faculty. Balancing the pressures of these distinct roles can leave the PLC walking a tightrope to avoid academic and political suicide (Ladany et al., 1996), striving to ensure that what they say and do will not bring about negative consequences (Mehr et al., 2010). It is possible that the multiple relationships a university expects a supervisor to have with a PLC could engender distrust and undermine the co-construction of a healthy, culturally sensitive, and effective SWA.

Further, the demands that the professor/supervisor receives from the university to publish and excel in many other areas can leave supervision as an afterthought, at times leaving few resources of time and energy left for effective supervision. This may explain why one common complaint of supervisees is that their supervisor gave insufficient observation and feedback (Ladany et al., 2013). Additionally, the pressure from the larger context of academia may lead to the potential exploitation of supervisees for academic gain (Cohen & Baruch, 2022), which would further damage the alliance, despite clear ethical codes prohibiting the exploitation of subordinates (AAMFT, 2015; ACA, 2014; APA, 2017; NASW, 2021). Ultimately, this can also impede PLC self-disclosure due to changing and sometimes conflicting allegiances between themselves and the supervisor as they both try to navigate a larger academic ecological system.

Case Continuation: Dual Relationships

Another aspect to consider when conceptualizing Julia’s lack of self-disclosure is the multiple relationships between Julia and Dr. Martin. As is common with CMFT programs, Julia and Dr. Martin are each active in several different intersecting roles. Julia, along with being a supervisee, is a pre-licensed clinician, a mentee, and a student; Dr. Martin along with being a supervisor, is also the program director, a professor, researcher, advisor, and practicing clinician. Despite clinical codes of ethics urging supervisors to avoid dual relationships when possible (AAMFT, 2015), the many roles supervisors have in academic and training programs often make this impossible. For Julia, reluctance to self-disclose goes beyond vulnerability with a supervisor, as it means she would also be sharing aspects of her personal life and struggles with her program director, professor, and advisor. The consequences related to this dual relationship are worrisome for Julia, as she fears that sharing her struggles could be perceived as doing a poor job in her role as a therapist, potentially affecting the way Dr. Martin assesses her level of competence in her other roles evaluated by him.

The information she shares with Dr. Martin during supervision is not forgotten when Dr. Martin switches roles to a class instructor or advisor. This information unavoidably shapes Dr. Martin’s perception of Julia throughout her time in the graduate program, even if unintentionally, thus influencing the way he interacts with her in other roles. These additional relationships compound the power that Dr. Martin has over Julia, which reinforces Julia’s reluctance to self-disclose, impeding her growth as a therapist and the progress of her clients.

Way of Being

A supervisor’s way of being reflects their in-the-moment self as they engage with others (Davis et al., 2021; Fife et al., 2014). Way of being is a concept grounded in the relational philosophy of Martin Buber who proposed that in any given moment we relate to others in one of two ways: either as objects (I-It) or real people (I-Thou) (Buber, 1958). When engaging with others in an I-It manner, we regard them as obstacles, vehicles, or irrelevancies (Fife, 2015). When relating in an I-Thou way, we are responsive to others’ humanity, recognizing that, like ourselves, they have needs, hopes, plans, and challenges of their own. An I-Thou way of being includes the process of being reflexive about one’s social position, places of power, and intersectionality (Zu, 2022). The multiple relationships a supervisor has with their PLC necessitate a responsive and dependable way of being that cuts across each relationship. A supervisor’s way of being directly impacts the vulnerability of the PLC and their willingness to self-disclose (Hutman et al., 2023; Stargell et al., 2020). For example, a supervisee who feels like they are an obstacle or inconvenience to the supervisor will be less likely to share details of their struggles. On the other hand, when a supervisor’s attention is on the supervisee and the supervisor is responsive to their needs, they may be more vulnerable or open about challenges they are experiencing. The AAMFT Code of Ethics emphasizes that CMFT supervisors must take all necessary precautions to avoid relationships that are harmful to PLCs (AAMFT, 2015). Therefore, it is the responsibility of supervisors to be mindful of their way of being when providing supervision and how this may be helping or hindering their supervisees.

Case Continuation: Way of Being

Due to the multiple roles Dr. Martin is expected to hold and the demands of his position at the university, he often feels overworked and lacks adequate time to prepare for clinical supervision with Julia. Though Dr. Martin enjoys his role as a supervisor, he recognizes that other tasks receive more recognition for his academic position. During a recent supervision meeting, Julia came primed with questions about applying a specific intervention to her work with the Sanders family. Dr. Martin knew he needed to address more aspects of Julia’s development than the implementation of therapy models and interventions, but he felt particularly drained this semester from a demanding research project and a heavy administrative load. Although somewhat distracted by these responsibilities, he turned his attention to supervision and began asking self-of-the-therapist questions of Julia without first addressing the distance he felt from Julia and her noticeable lack of disclosure. When he was met with resistance from Julia, he responded with less compassion than he normally would have and continued pushing Julia towards more self-awareness and disclosure. Julia began to feel anxious and shared that she was uncomfortable and unsure if she wanted to answer any more personal questions. After Dr. Martin made a comment about the importance of self-reflection, they changed subjects back to a new therapy model she wanted to try on the Sanders family, hoping that it might spark some progress. They ended supervision a little early, and Dr. Martin knew that he needed to approach things differently if he was going to be able to help Julia develop into a competent clinician.

Addressing Contextual Factors, Dual Relationships, and Way of Being in Supervision Feminism and Feminist Family Therapy

As attention to women’s issues continued to grow in the mid to late 1900s, family therapy models came under critique due to their failure to acknowledge the role gender plays in family systems (Evans et al., 2005; Goodrich et al., 1988; Hare-Mustin, 1978; Hall & Greene, 1994; Holmes, 2023; Silverstein & Goodrich, 2003; Walters et al., 1988). Out of this, a feminist family therapy framework emerged with three primary components: feminism is humanistic and focuses on rules that dictate interactional patterns between males and females; women’s experiences should be heard and equally considered in relationships, families, and society; and feminism focuses on the societal role that perpetuates male-dominated and sexist beliefs rather than the individual role (Walters et al., 1988). As feminists continued to advocate for equality, expanded definitions of feminism grew in popularity. New definitions focused on intersectionality– a term coined by Crenshaw (1989, 1995). Bowleg (2012) provides a clear definition for understanding the importance of intersectionality to feminism:

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework for understanding how multiple social identities such as race, gender, sexual orientation, SES, and disability intersect at the micro level of individual experience to reflect interlocking systems of privilege and oppression (i.e., racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism) at the macro social-structural level. (p. 1267)

With a more inclusive view, feminism and feminist family therapy highlight the compounding nature of the discrimination minorities face based on their multiple social identities, such as class, culture, race, and sexual orientation (Almeida, 1994; Brown, 2016; Gunderson, 2022; Hill & Ballou, 2005; Silverstein & Goodrich, 2003; Turan et al., 2019; Walters et al., 1988; Wandschneider et al., 2022). As such, this paper continues the conversation of intersectionality by utilizing principles of feminist family therapy and the feminism movement to highlight the power dynamics and social identities that are at play in the SWA.

Feminist-Informed ‘Way of Being’

Non-self-disclosure by supervisees is common in the clinical mental health field – a pattern that is not without consequences, such as negative impacts on the SWA and diminished supervisee and client outcomes (Lohani & Sharma, 2023). To change this tradition, we propose that supervisors adopt a feminist-informed way of being, specifically chosen to encourage supervisee self-disclosure of personal experiences and clinically relevant issues, which is essential for effective supervision to occur (Mehr et al., 2010; Staples-Bradley et al., 2019). Incorporation of feminist principles and development of specific feminist supervision interventions are not novel ideas (Brown, 2016; Porter & Vasquez, 1997; Prouty et al., 2001). However, increasing attention to and application of feminist perspectives in clinical supervision may have significant positive impact on the SWA and supervisee self-disclosure. We encourage the use of feminist supervision methods, such as using empowering language and acknowledging the power differentials that exist in the supervisory relationships (Brown, 2016; Porter & Vasquez, 1997; Prouty et al., 2001). Furthermore, we advocate for a collaborative approach to reduce the power imbalance and urge supervisors to promote multicultural conversations and learning with supervisees (Brown, 2016; Porter & Vasquez, 1997; Prouty et al., 2001; Wilcox et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2021). Utilizing a feminist orientation as well as engaging in multicultural learning are facilitative factors in effective supervision and can further aid in creating a strong SWA where the supervisee feels safe to self-disclose (McKibben et al., 2019; Wilcox et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2021).

Employing a feminist-informed way of being requires the supervisor to actively initiate PLCs in discussions regarding differences of culture, identity, and power and their implications (McKibben et al., 2019; Walsh et al., 2017). Sensitivity to diversity and cultural humility begin with the supervisor, and it rests upon them to introduce, guide, assess, and process cultural, contextual, and intersectional topics and practices. Doing this requires that supervisors prioritize their way of being with their supervisees more than the specific supervision behaviors (Anderson, 2012; D’Aniello et al., 2016; Fife et al., 2014). As previously mentioned, way of being is a concept defined as “a way of positioning oneself with” another person (Anderson, 2012, p. 13; Davis et al., 2021). The concept of “way of being” has been discussed by others, with a focus on the benefits to the therapeutic relationship. Fife and colleagues developed a therapeutic pyramid meta-model proposing way of being as the foundation to effective therapeutic relationships (Fife et al., 2014). Since the supervisory relationship is isomorphic to the therapeutic relationship (Watkins, 2017), an emphasis on the way of being of the supervisor can have beneficial effects on the SWA (Watkins, 2018). As such, we propose an adaptation of the therapeutic pyramid, developed by Fife and colleagues (2014), to fit a feminist-informed supervision framework, with an emphasis on the supervisor’s way of being.

As discussed by the creators of the therapeutic pyramid, “way of being refers to the in-the-moment attitude that therapists have toward clients and provides a foundation for the therapeutic alliance” (Fife et al., 2014, p. 24). However, to truly “value the personhood of clients and put the clients’ needs first” (Fife et al., 2014, p. 25), one must consider the context of how that personhood is situated. Similarly, if the supervisor hopes to build a strong SWA and encourage developmentally necessary self-disclosure of the supervisee, they must also “value the personhood of the [supervisee] and put the [supervisee’s] needs first” (Fife et al., 2014, p. 25).

Our adaption to the therapeutic pyramid (Fig. 1) highlights aspects of social identity that feminist family therapists emphasize in their work by incorporating contextual factors into the foundation of the supervisor’s way of being. Each contextual factor “brick” makes up and influences the supervisor’s way of being, stressing the importance of feminist family therapy principles being built-in to the foundation of the SWA. As the supervisor considers each contextual factor brick of their supervisee, they build a feminist-informed supervisor way of being, place value on the personhood of the supervisee, and are better equipped to address power differentials that impact the supervisory relationship. However, given the multiple roles supervisors may hold in relation to their supervisees, the application of these ideas should extend beyond the SWA for supervisors working with PLCs. We encourage supervisors that have multiple roles with their supervisees to continue this way of being in the classroom, advising, research mentoring, and other activities that are often present in academic and training programs. By doing so, supervisors avoid duality of identities and are able to more consistently maintain an I-Thou relationship with their supervisees, fostering a safe and inclusive environment for self-disclosure and clinical development (Nicholas & Goodyear, 2020).

Reflection Questions for Supervisors

Below are questions for supervisors, intended to encourage reflection about current supervisory practices, areas of discomfort, and ways they might apply a feminist-informed way of being to their supervision style. We invite readers who are in the role of supervisor, specifically in academic programs with PLCs, to thoughtfully consider these questions as they reflect on the case vignette and their own supervision experiences.

• How would I describe my current way of being with my supervisees? Are there aspects of my current way of being that are helpful and/or harmful?
• What contextual factors (or “bricks” in the pyramid) do I need to be more mindful of when working with my supervisees? How comfortable am I discussing issues of identity, culture, intersectionality, and systemic influences with my supervisees? What might be holding me back? How can I encourage conversations about these issues with my supervisees in order to benefit our SWA and their clinical practice?
• What implicit power dynamics exist in my supervisory relationships, and how do I currently address them? How could I navigate power dynamics in supervision that would facilitate increased supervisee self-disclosure?
• What are tangible next steps I can take to foster a supervisory environment that promotes supervisee self-disclosure?

Application of the Feminist-Informed Supervisory Pyramid

As seen in the case vignette, when examining the supervisor’s way of being and the SWA through a feminist lens, issues of gender, race, culture, hierarchal structures, and power dynamics become apparent. Along with an awareness of these factors, it is important to understand that the I-Thou way of being described by Buber includes “a continual resistance to generalizations, universalities, and categories that obscure the irreducible uniqueness of the Other” (Fife, 2015, p. 211). Thus, a way of being that facilitates safe, open dialogue about supervisees’ concerns or struggles is cognizant of and responsive to different aspects of supervisees’ identities but does not categorize them according to these factors. A supervisor who “really has in mind” their supervisee will have “the intention of establishing a living mutual relation between himself [sic] and them” (Buber, 1965, p. 19). Below, we present a continuation of the case vignette where the supervisor applies a feminist-informed way of being in his supervision, considers the included reflection questions, and implements changes based on his needs and experiences.

Case Continuation: Feminist-Informed Way of Being

Following the previous tense supervision meeting with Julia, Dr. Martin collaborates with another colleague about how he might repair his SWA with Julia so they can address more vulnerable self-of-the-therapist issues. The colleague points out that differences in social location and power may be affecting the SWA, which intrigues Dr. Martin. Throughout his career he has been aware of the importance of topics such as privilege and power and encouraged his supervisees and students to be aware of those dynamics in their therapeutic relationship with their clients. However, he recognized that his understanding of cultural humility has not translated well into his relationship with supervisees at times. After engaging in self-reflection about his current supervisory practices, he decides to sensitively breach the topic with Julia in their next supervision meeting. He does his best to facilitate a safe environment by empathically acknowledging the challenges she may be experiencing in their relationship, including the issues of gender, age, race, culture, and dual relationships, all the while checking with her for clarification or validation of those perceived challenges. He also apologizes for not having a conversation about these at the beginning of their work together. He genuinely cares and is humbly curious as he asks her to explain more of what this has been like for her. Sensing his sincerity, Julia shares her concerns and why she has been hesitant to disclose her struggles, specifically highlighting her fear that he may develop a negative perception of her abilities as a therapist, which could carry over into future interactions in the program, such as classes and advising. He asks additional questions and intently listens as Julia elaborates on her feelings. Dr. Martin strives to surrender power by committing to remain mindful of the concerns she has outlined. He thanks Julia for her vulnerability and together they discuss a plan for how supervision can be more meaningful and consistently safe for her to disclose what she is struggling with. He also asks if they can continue to talk about Julia’s experiences in supervision and additional concerns she may have moving forward throughout their time in supervision. He expresses that he hopes to learn from her experience so that he can be mindful of creating safety for other students.

Dr. Martin, as part of his continuing education requirements, seeks further supervision training, particularly on navigating power in supervision and the ways in which the SWA is influenced by the intersectionality of the supervisor and supervisee. He continues to check in with Julia and all his supervisees regarding the power dynamics in their SWA. In new supervision relationships, he addresses issues of power as a primary concern and foundation for their SWA to further facilitate safety and necessary self-disclosure. Additionally, as he transitions to the role of program director, course instructor, research mentor, or advisor with his supervisees, he is mindful of his way of being and strives to be consistent in his relationships and maintain a commitment to addressing power and intersectionality.

Conclusion

This paper has explored the usefulness of clinical supervision practices by applying a feminist lens. Specifically, we have examined power dynamics that are present in supervisory relationships with pre-licensed clinicians that often lead to supervisee non-self-disclosure. By applying feminist principles to a supervisor’s way of being and considering the intersectionality of a supervisor’s and supervisee’s identity, faculty supervisors can reduce the power imbalance that is inherent in the supervisory relationship. The quality of supervision and the supervisory working alliance can be enhanced as clinical supervisors embody a way of being that humbly acknowledges the combination of supervisor and supervisee contextual factors as imperative components in their SWA – a way of being that is consistent across supervisory roles and unavoidable positions of power; a way of being that demonstrates healthy navigation of these challenging issues not only for their supervisees, but with them; a way of being that is radically mindful of what it takes to facilitate a secure supervision environment and encourage appropriate and developmentally imperative supervisee self-disclosure.

While our case vignette provides examples of behaviors that can occur with a feminist-informed way of being, the application of feminist principles in supervision is idiosyncratic to each supervisor and supervision context, and each supervisor should evaluate how they can personally adopt a feminist-informed way of being. The intentional lack of prescriptive behaviors outlined in this paper acts as a point of self-reflection for each reader to evaluate their current way of being and explore how it can fully embrace a feminist-informed approach. As the one in power, the responsibility rests on the supervisor to be a self-evaluator and the primary evaluator of the SWA, rather than shifting this responsibility to the supervisee. Leaving evaluation to the supervisee may perpetuate an unsafe supervision environment. We encourage readers who connect with this message to boldly share it with supervisors in their social circles. Our hope is that supervisors everywhere welcome this feminist-informed model of supervision as we teach, guide, and mentor the next generation of mental health clinicians, and that pre-licensed clinicians feel safe and empowered to be vulnerable in supervision.