These answers draw in part from “Compassionate Leadership and Supervision — A Must for Our Profession” by Tyra Sellers, JD, PhD, BCBA-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 →Bidirectional growth refers to the professional development that occurs for both the supervisor and the supervisee within an effective supervisory relationship. The supervisor grows by receiving honest upward feedback from supervisees, by examining their own supervisory practices through reflective self-assessment, and by developing their relational and leadership skills through the demands of the supervisory role. The supervisee grows through feedback, modeling, guided practice, and the psychological safety to disclose uncertainty and take risks in clinical learning. Bidirectional growth is not a metaphor for mutual benefit — it is a specific claim that supervisors who build trusting, feedback-receptive relationships are actively developing their own clinical competence, not merely facilitating others'.
The first strategy is explicit acknowledgment of the power differential inherent in the supervisory relationship. Supervisees already know the supervisor holds authority over their certification and professional standing — pretending otherwise creates inauthenticity. Naming the power difference directly and describing how it will be exercised fairly builds trust by demonstrating the supervisor's honesty about the structural reality of the relationship. The second strategy is consistent behavioral follow-through on commitments. Trust is not built through declarations of intent — it is built through the accumulation of evidence that the supervisor does what they say. Every kept commitment adds to the trust ledger; every broken commitment, however small, withdraws from it.
Creating genuine upward feedback conditions requires more than asking 'do you have any feedback for me?' Supervisees in asymmetric power relationships have often learned that honest upward feedback carries professional risk. Supervisors can create safer conditions by asking specific, behaviorally anchored questions about their supervisory behavior, responding to any feedback received with visible curiosity and non-defensively, and — most critically — demonstrating through subsequent behavior that the feedback was heard and produced a change. When supervisees observe that their input actually shapes the supervisor's behavior, they learn that upward feedback is effective, which reinforces its future occurrence.
Psychological safety is the supervisee's perception that honest disclosure — of uncertainty, error, difficulty, or disagreement — does not put their professional standing at risk. In supervision, it is the condition that allows supervisees to bring their actual clinical experience to supervision rather than the performance of competence they believe the supervisor wants to see. Without psychological safety, supervision operates on incomplete and distorted information: supervisees present only their successes, conceal their struggles, and filter feedback defensively. With psychological safety, supervision operates on accurate data and can address the actual challenges the supervisee is navigating. Building psychological safety is therefore a clinical priority, not a relational nicety.
Code 4.04 requires providing adequate supervision, and adequacy implies a relational context that supports genuine skill development — not merely the procedural presence of supervisory activities. Code 1.05 requires maintaining competence in one's areas of practice, which extends to the relational and leadership competencies that make supervision effective. Code 4.07 requires ongoing evaluation and feedback — for bidirectional growth, this must include mechanisms for the supervisor to receive and integrate feedback about their own supervisory practice. Code 1.07 requires cultural responsiveness, which in supervision means attending to how the supervisee's cultural background shapes their experience of the supervisory relationship.
A supervisory relationship rupture — a moment or period in which the relational alliance is strained or broken — should be addressed directly rather than bypassed in favor of continued content-focused supervision. The repair process begins with the supervisor acknowledging that the rupture occurred: 'I noticed last session felt difficult. I'd like to understand what happened from your perspective.' This opens the door to the supervisee's experience without demanding a particular account of it. If the rupture was caused by the supervisor's behavior, taking direct responsibility and demonstrating changed behavior in subsequent sessions is the repair pathway. If caused by external circumstances, adjusting the pacing and tone of supervision to match the supervisee's current state is appropriate.
Compassion in supervision means delivering accountability within a relational context that makes accountability meaningful — acknowledging the supervisee's experience, attending to the context in which performance problems occur, and ensuring that corrective processes are designed to genuinely support improvement rather than simply document non-compliance. Leniency means reducing the performance standard or allowing insufficient performance to continue to avoid the discomfort of corrective conversations. These are categorically different. Compassionate supervisors maintain high standards; they address performance problems early, thoroughly, and with genuine regard for the supervisee's growth. Lenient supervisors avoid the discomfort of accountability at the expense of client welfare and supervisee development.
Supervisors are among the most powerful behavioral models available to supervisees. The behaviors supervisors model during supervision sessions — how they discuss uncertainty, how they respond to disagreement, how they handle complex clinical situations, how they engage with feedback — shape the supervisee's understanding of what professional behavior looks like at a level that explicit instruction rarely achieves. Supervisors who model intellectual honesty (sharing cases they found difficult), feedback receptivity (responding to supervisee input with genuine curiosity), and reflective practice (visibly examining their own clinical reasoning) are teaching these behaviors by demonstration. Supervisors whose modeled behavior contradicts their explicit instruction are teaching the modeled version, not the stated one.
Talking about feedback means making the feedback process itself an explicit topic within the supervisory relationship — not just delivering feedback, but discussing how feedback will work. This involves early conversations about the supervisee's history with feedback (what has been helpful, what has felt difficult), negotiating expectations about frequency, format, and content, discussing the functional purpose of feedback as a clinical tool rather than an evaluative judgment, and creating space for the supervisee to respond to feedback with their own perspective. When feedback has been discussed as a process, individual feedback events are situated within a shared framework, reducing the likelihood that corrective feedback will be experienced as an unexpected or personal attack.
The dual role creates a tension that affects both parties: supervisors must simultaneously support risk-taking and learning (which requires safety from negative consequences) and evaluate competency for certification purposes (which requires honest assessment of performance gaps). Supervisees who experience this tension as unacknowledged may present only their best performance in supervision to manage the evaluative risk, depriving the teacher function of accurate information about what they actually need to learn. Supervisors who name this tension explicitly and create designated spaces where exploration is genuinely encouraged — and where partial performance or disclosed uncertainty is not penalized — help supervisees navigate the dual role context rather than simply experiencing it as an invisible threat.
Effective upward feedback questions are behaviorally specific, non-leading, and genuinely answerable. Examples: 'Was there a moment in today's session where you felt I wasn't understanding your concern?' 'What's one thing about how I give feedback that you would want me to do differently?' 'When you think about the kind of supervisor you want to be someday, what do you see me doing that you want to carry forward — and what do you want to do differently?' These questions anchor the supervisee's response in observable experience, signal genuine openness, and produce information the supervisor can actually act on. Compare these to 'Is there anything I could do better?' — a closed-ended question that invites a social reflex ('No, you're great') rather than genuine reflection.
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.
Compassionate Leadership and Supervision — A Must for Our Profession — Tyra Sellers · 3 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
225 research articles with practitioner takeaways
223 research articles with practitioner takeaways
3 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.