These answers draw in part from “Navigating Tough Conversations” by Caitlin Peterson, MSW, LCSW, CHT (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 →Defensiveness is most often triggered by feedback that activates threat appraisal — the supervisee experiences the feedback as an evaluation of their worth rather than an analysis of a specific behavior. To reduce defensiveness, separate the behavior from the person explicitly and consistently: describe the observable behavior and its impact without characterizations of the person's character, motivation, or professional identity. Use a collaborative frame: 'I want to help you develop this skill' is different from 'here is a problem you need to fix.' If emotional responses are significant and persistent, consider discussing the feedback conversation process directly — asking what would make it easier to receive feedback — rather than continuing to deliver feedback in a format that reliably produces defensiveness. The defensiveness is data about the current communication format's effectiveness.
Open with a clear, specific statement of purpose rather than small talk or a softening preamble that obscures the point. Ambiguous openings ('I just want to check in...') produce anxiety without clarity. A direct but respectful opening sounds like: 'I want to talk with you about something I observed in last Wednesday's session that I think needs to change. I want to make sure you have all the information, and I want to hear your perspective.' This signals honesty, specificity, mutual respect, and genuine interest in the supervisee's view — all before you have said anything about the actual concern. Then name the concern specifically, in behavioral terms.
Clinical disagreement is professionally healthy when handled well. Distinguish between disagreement about facts (what the data show), disagreement about interpretation (what the data mean), and disagreement about values (what goals matter). The first two are resolvable through empirical analysis. The third requires genuine exploration and sometimes negotiation. Ask the supervisee to explain their reasoning: 'Walk me through what you are seeing that leads you to that interpretation.' Listen with genuine curiosity rather than waiting for a gap to rebut. If the disagreement is about a clinical decision that you hold responsibility for, you can hear the supervisee fully and then make a decision that differs from their recommendation — but do so explicitly, explaining your reasoning, rather than dismissing the disagreement.
Self-advocacy in this context requires being specific about the clinical concern rather than only the personal burden. Rather than 'I have too many clients,' the self-advocacy conversation goes: 'My current caseload of X clients in Y settings means I can only provide supervision at the BACB minimum frequency, which is not sufficient for several of the complex cases I am carrying. Specifically, [name cases]. I want to discuss what we can do to bring my caseload to a level where I can provide supervision that meets the professional standard.' This framing presents the concern as a client welfare and ethical issue — which it is — and invites a problem-solving conversation rather than a personal complaints conversation. Document the conversation and its outcome.
Direct, private conversation before escalation is both ethically preferred and practically protective of the relationship. Approach the colleague with the assumption that they may not be aware of the problem or may have relevant context you lack: 'I observed something in [situation] that concerned me from an ethics standpoint and I want to understand your thinking before I form any conclusion.' This is not naive — it is the approach that the Ethics Code's emphasis on direct communication requires, and it is the approach most likely to produce a resolution without a formal complaint process. If the direct conversation confirms an ethical violation and does not resolve it, Code 3.04 requires escalation — and at that point, the relationship damage is a consequence of the colleague's conduct, not of your reporting.
Planning for your own emotional responses before the conversation is more effective than trying to manage them in the moment. Identify the specific aspects of this conversation that are most likely to activate a strong response — and decide in advance how you will respond if they occur. Building in physical regulation strategies (controlled breathing, grounding posture) during moments of heightened response is appropriate and does not need to be concealed. If a conversation escalates past what you can manage in the moment, it is acceptable to pause: 'I want to give this the attention it deserves — can we take a short break and come back to this?' This models exactly the self-awareness and self-regulation this course is training.
Directness refers to clarity and honesty about what you are communicating — saying specifically what you mean without obfuscation, deflection, or excessive hedging. Harshness involves directness delivered without care for the recipient's dignity, without acknowledgment of their perspective, or with evaluative language that goes beyond the behavior to characterize the person. You can be maximally direct — 'The data recording on these three sessions was not accurate, and I need to understand why' — without being harsh. Harshness enters when directness is paired with contempt, dismissiveness, or disproportionate consequence: 'I cannot believe you missed this — this is basic.' The content of direct feedback is about behavior and its impact. The delivery of non-harsh feedback communicates that the person's dignity and developmental potential are not in question.
Liking someone and addressing their performance concerns are not in conflict — in fact, genuine care for someone includes being honest with them about patterns that are damaging their professional standing. The difficulty is usually not about the content of the feedback but about the fear that honest feedback will damage the warmth of the relationship. Address it early, privately, specifically, and with care: 'I want to bring something up because I want you to succeed here and I think this pattern is something we need to address together.' Specifically name the behavior pattern with dates and examples. Ask whether there are circumstances you should know about. Establish a clear expectation and a timeline. Then follow up — both to address ongoing concerns if they continue and to acknowledge improvement when it occurs.
Behavioral momentum helps: start with lower-stakes honest conversations and let the experience of those going reasonably well build your approach toward harder ones. Examine the self-rules maintaining avoidance — 'it will ruin the relationship,' 'they will be devastated,' 'nothing will change anyway' — and test them against your actual experience of honest conversations. Most avoided conversations, when finally had, are far less catastrophic than anticipated. Connect with the purpose behind the conversation: the client whose treatment depends on a functional supervisory relationship, the supervisee who deserves honest feedback, the professional standards you are responsible for upholding. Purpose-grounded action is more resilient under aversive conditions than rule-following alone.
Document the date, participants, specific concerns raised, the supervisee's response, any agreed-upon action steps, and the timeline for follow-up. Use behavioral language throughout — describe what was observed, not your interpretations of intent or character. Documentation of difficult conversations serves multiple purposes: it provides a record for performance management if concerns are not resolved, it helps you track whether agreed-upon changes occur, and it protects you professionally if the conversation is later misrepresented. Store documentation in a location consistent with your agency's records policies. Note any emotional distress displayed by the supervisee and any accommodations or support offered. Documentation is not punitive — it is professional practice.
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.
Navigating Tough Conversations — Caitlin Peterson · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $15
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.
195 research articles with practitioner takeaways
179 research articles with practitioner takeaways
142 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $15 · 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.