The Typology of the Psychology (not-so-super) Supervisor...

So, I am about to offer supervision packages this summer, and it got me thinking about the "Why Me?" of selling supervision. What is it about me that will make others choose to work with me?

Supervision feels more personal - because it is. Relationships are the centre of psychology. Supervision is where we share our innermost thoughts, feelings and competencies as professionals. With that in mind, it is easy to understand why, when supervision isn't going so well, the impact on our own self-view can be lasting. Many of us can feel doubt, imposter syndrome or stunted growth, myself included.

I decided to reflect back on my past experiences and think about the impact of the not-so-super supervisors in order to think about ways to do this better.

1. The Micromanager - this supervisor over-directs everything, including specific wording in reports. You may feel you aren’t trusted to exercise your own professional judgment, even when competent. It can lead to rigidity and stunt the development of independent practice. In comes the birth of imposter syndrome.

2. The Ghost - Supervision sessions get cancelled, feedback is vague or delayed, and critical decisions may lack guidance. You may be left feeling exposed and unsupported, figuring things out alone or with ChatGTP (yikes!).

3. The Credit Collector - Common in research-heavy psychology roles. This supervisor positions themselves as the lead author on papers or presentations regardless of contribution, while junior researchers or clinicians do most of the groundwork. You may feel afraid to assert your position or your expertise.

4. The Firefighter - Everything becomes about managing immediate risk or the loudest problem. There’s little space for reflective practice, formulation, or long-term planning. You find yourself expected to react to sudden changes in plans, trying to take on new cases, feeling burned out, guilty for saying no, and essentially people-pleasing.

5. The Microaggressor - This supervisor’s small comments or assumptions affect staff morale and wellbeing, but can directly shape bias and undermine cultural competence. You are left feeling overwhelmed at the thought of counteracting systemic racism and unconscious bias whilst just trying to do the day job.

In psychology, the common thread is that poor supervision doesn’t just affect staff—it can ripple into client outcomes, ethical standards, and professional development.

Based on these typologies, I came up with my key tenets of what supervision should encompass...

It feels safe and stretching

You can be honest about mistakes, doubts, and stuck points—without fear of judgment—but you’re also challenged, not just comforted.

It balances the three lenses

Good supervision moves between:

• the work (tasks, cases, risk)

• you as the practitioner (thoughts, feelings, reactions)

• the wider context (ethics, systems, power, culture)

Not just one at the expense of the others.

It’s collaborative, not hierarchical

You’re not being “talked at.” There’s mutual respect, curiosity, and space to think together.

It names what’s happening

A great supervisor notices patterns, blind spots, and strengths—and actually says them out loud, clearly and kindly.

It gives specific, usable feedback

Not vague praise or criticism, but grounded examples:

“What you did there helped because…” / “Next time, you might try…”

It includes positive feedback

Not just problem-solving. Your strengths are identified and built on—not assumed or ignored.

It’s consistent and protected

It happens regularly, isn’t rushed, and isn’t treated as optional.

It attends to power and difference

Good supervision is aware of identity, bias, and microaggressions—and actively works against them.

It helps you think, not just do

You leave with more clarity, perspective, and confidence—not just a to-do list.