These answers draw in part from “Building Influence Through Supervision: An Innovative RBT Review Process Rooted in Leadership and Core Values” by Sara Feldman, Ph.D. (BehaviorLive), and extend it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. Clinical framing, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →Maxwell's 5 Levels describe a progression of influence: Level 1 (Position) is influence based on title alone — people follow because they have to. Level 2 (Permission) is influence based on relationship — people follow because they want to. Level 3 (Production) is influence based on results — people follow because of what you accomplish together. Level 4 (People Development) is influence based on investment in others — people follow because of what you do for them. Level 5 (Pinnacle) is influence based on legacy. In RBT supervision, most BCBAs operate primarily at Level 1 by default. Moving to Level 2 and beyond requires deliberate investment in the supervisory relationship — learning what RBTs value, what challenges they face, and what support would help them develop. The clinical payoff is that RBTs supervised at higher influence levels implement procedures more consistently, raise concerns earlier, and stay in their roles longer.
Core value discussions are structured conversations where supervisors and RBTs explore what values are most important to the RBT in their work — for example, connection with clients, continuous learning, making a difference in families' lives, or fairness in how they are treated. These conversations are facilitated through open-ended questions: What drew you to this work? What aspects of your job feel most meaningful? When do you feel most effective? What would make your work feel more sustainable? The supervisor's role in these conversations is primarily to listen and reflect, not to evaluate or advise. The information gathered helps the supervisor understand the motivating operations shaping the RBT's performance and identify where supervision can provide more meaningful support.
Personal goal setting in this context refers to professional goals the RBT has for their own development and career — not personal life goals that would be outside the scope of the supervisory relationship. Examples include goals related to improving a specific clinical skill, pursuing the BCaBA credential, developing more confidence in parent communication, or becoming more comfortable with data interpretation. These goals are incorporated into the review as explicit developmental targets, with the supervisor providing resources, structured practice opportunities, and feedback aligned with the RBT's stated direction. This keeps personal goal setting within the professional domain while meaningfully personalizing the supervisory experience in a way that builds engagement and commitment.
BACB Ethics Code 4.05 requires supervisors to maintain documentation of supervision activities. For a values-based review process, documentation should include the date and duration of the review meeting, the clinical skill areas assessed and the RBT's performance ratings, the developmental goals discussed and any agreed-upon action items, feedback provided and the RBT's response, and any concerns raised by either party. The values and goal discussion components should be documented in a way that preserves the substance of the conversation without reducing it to a checklist. This documentation serves as a record of the supervisory relationship over time and provides evidence of the supervisor's compliance with their ethical obligations under Codes 4.05 and 4.06.
Measure the outcomes you actually care about: treatment fidelity rates across RBT caseloads, RBT retention by supervisory cohort, client progress metrics disaggregated by RBT, family satisfaction scores, and frequency of performance concerns requiring formal corrective action. Compare these metrics before and after implementing the new review process, and across supervisors using different review formats if your organization is piloting the approach. RBT self-report data on supervisory satisfaction and psychological safety can also provide leading indicators of whether the relational components of the review process are functioning as intended. Track these systematically rather than relying on anecdotal impressions.
Code 4.07 prohibits behavior analysts from exploiting power differentials in supervisory relationships. In RBT supervision, this means supervisors must not use their evaluative authority to coerce compliance, assign tasks outside the RBT's scope without adequate support, dismiss legitimate concerns about working conditions or client safety, or create conditions where RBTs feel unable to decline requests or raise concerns without professional consequences. A review process that explicitly invites RBT feedback about the supervisory relationship and that creates a structured space for upward communication is one practical measure that reduces the conditions under which power differential exploitation can occur, both intentionally and inadvertently.
Resistance and disengagement in RBTs often signal that something in the supervision environment is functioning as a punisher, an extinction contingency, or a context for aversive interactions — not that the RBT is inherently uncommitted. Start by conducting an informal functional analysis of the disengagement: when does it occur, what antecedents precede it, what consequences follow it? Common factors include supervision that is primarily critical without adequate positive reinforcement, unclear performance expectations, inconsistency between what is asked of the RBT and what is modeled by the supervisor, or cultural or communication style mismatches. Approach the disengaged RBT with curiosity rather than correction, and prioritize learning what is maintaining the current behavioral pattern before attempting to change it.
RBT turnover is driven by a well-documented set of variables: low pay relative to job demands, insufficient support from supervisors, feeling undervalued, limited career advancement opportunities, and the emotional weight of working with clients presenting severe problem behavior. A values-based review process directly addresses several of these variables: it makes RBTs feel seen and valued as whole professionals rather than interchangeable implementers, it creates clear pathways for advancement, and it surfaces burnout risk early through honest conversations about workload and sustainability. It does not address compensation directly, but organizations that invest in the full range of supervisory quality factors alongside competitive compensation see meaningfully better retention outcomes than those that rely on pay alone.
At minimum, RBT reviews should assess the core competencies in the RBT Task List: measurement and data collection, skill acquisition program implementation (including discrete trial teaching, naturalistic teaching, and prompt hierarchies), behavior reduction procedures (including extinction, differential reinforcement, and crisis procedures as applicable), documentation accuracy, and professional conduct. For RBTs implementing complex behavior plans, additional assessment areas should include functional communication training implementation, safety management, and generalization programming. Beyond task list items, reviews should assess implementation fidelity relative to the specific programs each RBT is running — generic skill checklists don't capture whether an RBT is implementing a particular client's behavior plan with sufficient fidelity.
This tension is real and should be acknowledged explicitly with RBTs rather than minimized. As a supervisor, your role is to support the RBT's development and create conditions for strong performance. As an evaluator, your role is to assess performance accurately and to take corrective action when performance doesn't meet standard. These roles can conflict, particularly when honest developmental feedback could have employment consequences. Managing this tension requires making the distinction between developmental feedback — aimed at growth, shared collaboratively — and formal performance evaluation — documented, consequential, procedurally governed — as clear as possible. RBTs should understand which type of feedback they are receiving at any given time, so they can engage with developmental conversations without treating every observation as a high-stakes evaluation.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Building Influence Through Supervision: An Innovative RBT Review Process Rooted in Leadership and Core Values — Sara Feldman · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $30
Take This Course →We extended these answers with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind the topic, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
280 research articles with practitioner takeaways
279 research articles with practitioner takeaways
258 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $30 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.