25

Supervision in Systemic
Family Therapy
Marj Castronova, Jessica ChenFeng, and
Toni Schindler Zimmerman

The profession of systemic family therapy (SFT) is well regarded for the breadth and
depth of its supervision. Supervision is a distinct area within SFT with a designation,
a body of literature, and requirements to meet high standards. The requirements to
become an American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT)
Approved Supervisor (AS) include the ability to develop and articulate a personal
philosophy of supervision. This philosophy must include the following learning objec-
tives: evidence of systems thinking; clarity of purpose and goals; roles and responsibili-
ties; preferred processes of supervision; evidence of sensitivity to contextual factors;
ethics and legal issues; awareness of personal and professional experiences that impact
supervision; supervision models; and connection between one’s own therapy model
and supervision model (AAMFT, 2016). Approved supervisors must demonstrate
competency in all the areas to meet the designation requirements. This chapter is
organized by these learning objectives. We will begin with the sensitivity to contextual
factors learning objective as we regard this objective as foundational to all the others.
To be an effective SFT supervisor, we must be intentional in addressing issues related
to oppression, racism, privilege, power, marginalization, and a global context. These
are essential and will also be integrated into the other learning objectives covered in
this chapter.

Learning Objective: Sensitivity to Contextual Factors

The SFT supervisor is responsible for understanding and being sensitive to contextual
factors including but not limited to race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, ability, socio-
economic status, sexual orientation, and the intersectionality of these. Sensitivity to
the personal (i.e., stereotypes, implicit, and explicit bias) and institutional (i.e., judi-
cial, economic, education, health care) oppression that those from marginalized pop-
ulations face is essential if we are to engage in meaningful relationships in therapy and
supervision. We know cultural differences influence feedback in supervision. For
instance, supervisors of European descent are more inclined to give feedback about

The Handbook of Systemic Family Therapy: Volume 1, First Edition. Edited by Karen S. Wampler,
Richard B Miller, and Ryan B. Seedall.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
578 Marj Castronova et al.

specific counseling skills, whereas supervisors of non‐European descent address aware-

ness of cultural sensitivity (Burkard, Knox, Clarke, Phelps, & Inman, 2012). When an
SFT supervisor lacks cultural awareness (the ability to recognize difference) and/or
cultural sensitivity (the ability to attune to difference), we know that cultural context,
power, and intersectionality are rarely considered or discussed (Gutierrez, 2018).
Quality multicultural supervision involves the following: recognizing cultural systems
and multiple cultural interactions; maintaining a strong alliance with an open and safe
space; examining personal worldviews, power, privileges, and biases; questioning
one’s own cultural sensitivity; working with supervisees to identify prejudices; enhanc-
ing non‐stereotyped cultural knowledge bases; and developing an ongoing openness
to difference (Gutierrez, 2018). Supervisors must commit to ongoing learning related
to self‐awareness, examining and managing privilege, and understanding how the
experiences of oppression influence the lives of people in profound ways. Continued
learning can include relevant shared readings and TED Talks to increase knowledge
and understanding. It also can include experiential activities to increase attunement of
power differentials (Zimmerman, Castronova, & ChenFeng, 2016).
For example, fill out a Supervision Social Location Map Form (see Figure 25.1)
for each client discussed in supervision and include the location of the trainee and
supervisor. The visual of who is located where for multiple social locations areas are
useful in keeping power differentials central throughout the supervision discussion.
To move from writing on the map to an experience, try the following. Put 8–10
chairs in line all facing forward one behind the other like a bus. Alternatively, use
pieces of paper placed in a line on the floor to stand on. Think of the chairs (or
papers) as the human race where those in the back have more barriers in their lives,
an unfair start, and can become invisible to those facing forward in front of them.
Work with the trainee to determine (roughly) where the client, the trainee, and the
supervisor might sit (or stand) if represented in the Supervision Social Location
Map. For instance, a trainee may sit or stand where their elderly, transgender, black
client might be given the intersection of multiple oppressed identities. The supervi-
sor and trainee must be attuned to the racism, bias, trauma, oppression, and maybe
even violence that the client has and continues to face. Staying attuned and sensitive
to context is essential to do no harm. Harm can be done when the supervisor and the
trainee confuse what we wish were true; an equal and just world with what is true;
significant historical and current disparities. We are not sitting side by side all in a
row as some are located in the back of the row and some are in the front. These
power differentials cannot be ignored or minimized as we cannot be sensitive to
context if we are colorblind or simply see all races as equal, rather than understand
racism and its profound impact. To not recognize oppression or to minimize it is to
contribute to it and do harm.
The CARE model (ChenFeng, Castronova, & Zimmerman, 2017) is a way to stay
attuned to power differentials in supervision (see Figure 25.2). In this chapter, we
have added an “i” to represent intersectionality. The iCARE lens is a way for the
supervisor to walk through cultural complexities using a framework (see Figure 25.3).

iCARE lens
In considering cultural complexities in a way that creates safety for trainees and clients,
two critical elements are needed: intersectionality and cultural humility. Intersectionality
 Social location map form
Client(s) Therapist Supervisor
Most privileged Less privileged
Gender Men That is, Women, transgender, genderqueer, nonbinary,
gender fluid
Race White That is, Black, Asian, native American, multiracial (lighter
tones tend to have more privilege)
Religion Mainstream Christianity That is, Jewish, Muslim

Age Middle age and young That is, Elderly, teens

adults
Ability Fully able That is, Disability physical, mental, or cognitive
Cognitive and physical
Class Upper and middle income That is, Homeless, poor, lower income

Culture Western culture – That is, Collectivism, Tribalism, Jewish, Muslim

individualism
Ethnicity European American African American, Nigerian,
Asian American, Hmong Hispanic American,
Latinx, indigenous

Education College education That is, Trade school, military, high school, GED

Sexuality Heterosexual That is, Bisexual, gay, lesbian, asexual, queer

Spirituality Moderate expression That is, High or low expression

In each category write how the client(s), therapist, and supervisor identify themselves and along the privilege continuums add an x to indicate
the degree of lived experiences with institutional disparities, discrimination,and oppression. Consider identifiers and the way in which they
intersect to inform privilege. Other identifiers can be added, such as language, appearance, family structure, geographical background, etc.
Privileged categories vary in different global context.

Figure 25.1  Social Location Map Form.

580 Marj Castronova et al.

Connecting with supervisees through sharing backgrounds/context

A ppreciating privilege, power, and biases

R atifying a cultural knowledge base with cultural humility

Embracing our role as social justice agents

Figure 25.2  CARE Model.

Intersectionality

• I–low • I–high
• C–high • C–high

Connecting Appreciating

Cultural humility
Sharing Privilege, power, bias
backgrounds/context

Ratifying Embracing
Cultural Social justice role
humility/knowledge

• I–low • I–low
• C–low • C–high

Figure 25.3  iCARE lens.

is a critical element in the iCARE lens as it addresses “the interaction between gender,
race, and other categories of difference in individual lives, social practices, institutional
arrangements, and cultural ideologies and the outcomes of these interactions in terms
of power” (Davis, 2008, p. 68). When the supervisor or trainee has lived in the major-
ity population with majority rules and norms, it is difficult for them to recognize or
understand the complexities of intersectionality and how they have impacted marginal-
ized communities. This lack of awareness can lead a supervisor and trainee to ignore
and marginalize the complexities of cultural influences (Gutierrez, 2018). This can
happen in the therapy room from a client, a peer therapist, or even a supervisor. It is
the supervisor’s responsibility to attend to working with the trainee by validating and
processing through their experience and then working to create accountability and
 Supervision 581

empowerment for the trainee (Hernandez & McDowell, 2010). Intersectionality in

the iCARE lens is considered on a continuum of low to high.
Cultural humility is the second essential concept in the iCARE lens and it is also
considered on a continuum from low to high. It is the “ability to maintain an inter-
personal stance that is other‐oriented (open to the other) in relation to aspects of
cultural identity that are most important to the client” (Hook, Davis, Owen,
Worthington, & Utsey, 2013, p. 354). SFT supervisors and trainees all have their own
beliefs, values, and worldviews that are heavily influenced by their own experiences.
Cultural humility is best expressed when supervisors do not assume their own compe-
tence in culture knowledge; rather they remain humble and curious and express
respect with cultural differences and unique variations within cultural differences. The
variations of cultural humility and intersectionality are briefly described in Figure 25.3.

High in cultural humility and high in intersectionality  We know that when supervi-

sors are high in cultural humility and in intersectionality, strong alliances are built with
supervisees. This is critical to quality supervision and essential to working with train-
ees of different social demographics (Inman, 2006). The acknowledgment of the role
of power, privilege, and bias is important to the development of a trainee’s ability to
be multicultural (Hird, Cavalieri, Dulko, Felice, & Ho, 2001), and multicultural
supervision is a critical factor to the development of the trainee’s self‐efficacy
(Constantine, 2001).

Low in cultural humility and high in intersectionality  When supervisors are low in

cultural humility and high in intersectionality, there is a tendency to make assump-
tions based on privilege, power, and biases. While the supervisor sees intersections,
they may see all oppressions as equal and conflicting intersections may be ignored or
missed. Rather than maintaining a curious and culturally humble stance, the supervi-
sor may make assumptions about their cultural knowledge being accurate and thus
lacks in respectful openness and collaborative supervision. Supervisors who are low
in cultural humility may also struggle with emotionally attuning to cultural differ-
ences and examining their own worldviews, privileges, and biases. A lack of cultural
humility weakens the supervisor–supervisee relationship and alliance may be
threatened.

High in cultural humility and low in intersectionality  When the SFT supervisor’s

cultural humility is high and intersectionality is low, there is a curiosity about power,
privilege, and biases; however they are blinded by their own bias of “the way things
should be.” It is hard for them to tolerate incongruence or experiences of oppres-
sions in supervisees, including the ability to reconciling differences that conflict
with their own worldviews, power, privilege, and biases. For instance, if a supervisor
focuses on just one dimension of diversity, such as gender, the socially constructed
intersects of gender within socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, nation of origin,
ethnicity, and sexual orientation that organize family forms and various dimensions
of social inequality will be missed. Furthermore, if a supervisor does not consider
spirituality, especially when working with marginalized populations, they are miss-
ing an important dimension that influences every aspect of life, including sociocul-
tural beliefs, family traditions, everyday practices, and personal belief systems
(Aponte, 1994).
582 Marj Castronova et al.

Low in  cultural humility and  low in  intersectionality  When supervisors are low in
both cultural humility and intersectionality, social context may rarely be discussed and
the potential for experiences of marginalization increase. Hardy (2008) makes this
point when he uses irony to give tips to minority trainees when their supervisor lacks
in cultural humility and or intersectionality. He advises them to “develop comfort
with being judged by others’ standards” as the dominant group often views ­themselves
as knowledgeable enough to criticize the minority trainee for being “too abrasive,”
“too emotional,” or “too passive” (Hardy, 2008, p. 468). When supervisors are una-
ware of the complexity and oppressions within intersectionality, they have limited
awareness that it is a prominent factor in marginalized communities.

Other mental health professions and the future of social context

Since contextual factors and systemic influences are viewed as distinguishing elements
of SFT supervision, we want to consider what other mental health professions are
contributing to our understanding of diversity. A significant amount of multicultural
supervision literature is being developed, and there are professional journals dedicated
to multiculturalism, such as the Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development.
Other mental health professions have adopted multicultural competencies (American
Counseling Association [ACA], 2015a, 2015b; American Psychological Association
[APA], 2017) and developed assessments in diversity to guide supervisors and clini-
cians (Pope‐Davis, Toporek, & Ortega‐Villalobos, 2003; Wong & Wong, 2000). The
Multicultural Supervision Scale (MSS) (Sangganjanavanich & Black, 2011) assesses
the “supervisors’ multicultural competencies in a variety of personal dimensions
including ethnicity, cultural heritage, gender, sexual orientation, age, spiritual belief,
socioeconomic status, body image, and disabilities” (pp. 20–21). The Cultural
Humility Scale (CHS) (Hook et  al., 2013) measures the client’s perception of the
therapist’s cultural humility. Closer to home, Inman (2005, 2006) developed the
Supervisor Multicultural Competence Inventory (SMCI) to assess a supervisor’s
­multicultural competence in five areas of supervision: “supervisor–supervisee personal
development, case conceptualization, interventions, process, and outcome/evaluations”
(Inman, 2006, p. 77).

Learning Objective: Evidence of Systems Thinking

Traditional approaches to therapy and supervision were linear and causal. As sys-
temic thinking influenced the development of marriage and family therapy (MFT)
theories, new models of supervision were needed to teach the complexities of
working with systems. The premise of the systemic perspective, “the whole is
greater than the sum” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book VIII, 1045a, pp. 8–10; von
Bertanlanffy, 1968), came out of multiple epistemologies including cybernetics,
anthropology, mathematics, communication, and biology. Central to the develop-
ment of early systemic thinking in therapy was the revolutionary idea of working
with the family and the identified patient. For a broad overview, Jordan and Fisher
(2016) provide a “historical supervision genogram” that demonstrates the evolu-
tion of SFT supervision (pp. 6–7).
 Supervision 583

In considering issues of diversity in our history, Hardy and McGoldrick (2008)

remind us that while the originators of family therapy were white, they were interested
in cultural impact: Bateson was a cultural anthropologist, Weakland studied anthro-
pology, and Watzlawick was a linguist who had lived in a multitude of cultures.
Walters, Carter, Papp, and Silverstein (1988) brought the contexts of power, inequal-
ity, and gender as critical elements needing attending in systemic thinking. Aponte
(1994) has unswervingly reminded us of the cultural ties of spirituality and ecology.
Boyd‐Franklin (2003) and Falicov (1995) have specifically addressed culture and its
impact on family systems for decades.

Underlying tenets to systemic thinking

The underlying principles of systemic thinking include the idea of recursion, feedback,
homeostasis, openness/closedness, morphostasis/morphogenesis, rules and bounda-
ries, entropy/negentropy, and equifinality/equipotentiality. We are intentionally con-
sidering these core systemic tenets through a social contextual lens to demonstrate the
fluidity of their integration.

Recursion or reciprocal causality  Supervisors need to consider and attend to their

own culpability to reciprocal causality discrimination in therapy. There is little research
on trainee’s experiences of racism in the therapy room and supervision (Ali et  al.,
2005); however there is evidence that it does occur (Sue et al., 2007). Hardy (2008)
reminds us that while the SFT profession claims to value diversity, it still remains
largely homogenetic and paradoxically recommends the following to shift the hidden
recursion patterns of racism in our field:

Never discuss race. Remaining mute regarding race and racial issues is extremely impor-
tant. Discussing race might review that you are hypersensitive about skin color or that
you have unresolved racial issues that warrant resolution. If you must discuss race during
a moment of weakness, use acceptable code words, such as “minority,” “ethnicity,”
“cultural diversity,” or “others” to deemphasize race. Discussing race makes everyone
tense and should be avoided, even if it makes matters worse for you personally. (Hardy,
2008, p. 464)

Supervisors must take the lead and have conversations about race. In order to do this
effectively, they must work to understand oppression, both the experiences of it and
the data about it. An example of this is being informed about mass incarceration. The
documentaries by Ava DuVernay’s (2016) 13th Amendment and Michelle Alexander’s
(2012) The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness are power-
ful depictions of racial inequality in the prison system.

Feedback, homeostasis, morphostasis, and  morphogenesis  Supervisors attend to and

teach supervisees to recognize and work with the various feedback sources that influ-
ence the relational system as the systemic theory of change says that when one part of
a system changes, the other parts are impacted. Anything that has the potential to
change the relational system is feedback, including the very processes of therapy and
supervision. The system itself strives for maintaining its level of functioning prior to
the feedback and this is known as homeostasis. The SFT supervisor is working with
584 Marj Castronova et al.

the supervisee to recognize when a client’s relational system is in a state of morphos-

tasis (stability turned stagnant) or morphogenesis (change turned to chaos). Finding
a balance between these two states can be complicated. Derrick (2005) notes that
when she attended an AAMFT AS course, she was asked to define what the word
supervisor meant to her:

I immediately found a huge lump in my throat and rage swelling throughout my body. I
had images of the supervisor of many small boys who had sexually, physically, and psy-
chologically harmed them for years in the residential school in the community. (p. 48)

The word supervisor connected her to images and emotions of harm and genocide
in her own Native American relational system, and as Derrick (2005) steps into her
role of supervising and training non‐Native people, she often finds herself breathing
slowly, praying, and forgiving. She strives for morphogenesis, yet encounters mor-
phostasis when white therapists say, “Stop being dramatic or political” or “It’s time to
move forward and to forget the past” (Derrick, 2005, p. 48). Occasionally Derrick
experiences a morphogenetic response when someone acknowledges they did not
know and want to figure out how to work together.

Rules and boundaries  Rules and boundaries can vary greatly when attending to cul-
tural uniqueness. For instance, a trainee from an individualistic culture may initially
view a client from a collectivist culture as having an extended family with “too much”
influence, rather than considering how the rules and boundaries may be different in a
collectivistic culture. SFTs are trained to value difference in their clients, but their
own biases show up in the therapy room. It is the SFT supervisor’s role to work with
the trainee in helping them to see difference in cultural values and to not misinterpret
them or see them as wrong (Gutierrez, 2018). Helping the supervisee remain curious
about how the client’s culture may have influenced the rules and boundaries and
­consider how their own culture has influenced their own ideas, relational rules, and
boundaries is essential.

Openness/closedness  Each relational system has a continuum of openness to clos-

edness that allows for information to flow into and out of the system. A variety of
factors determine openness or closedness of a system. The supervisor is attending
to this continuum given the presenting problem, the needs of the client’s rela-
tional system, and the various contextual influences on and in the system. For
instance, when working with first‐ and second‐generation minority immigrants
where the presenting problem is parental conflict between the generations, it is
important to note how social location can affect one’s view of the problem. If a
trainee is a first‐generation immigrant, she/he may inadvertently try to guide a
second‐generation immigrant client toward respecting their elders and all the sac-
rifices that were made on his/her behalf, whereas a white trainee born in the
United States may not be aware of how the parent–child conflict is due to
­acculturation and the openness or closedness of the second generation. When
supervisors are working from a model‐specific supervision process, such as
Bowenian, the integration of theory and cultural values may vary the openness or
closedness of the system when considering constructs like differentiation, chronic
anxiety, and togetherness and separation.
 Supervision 585

Equifinality/equipotentiality  The premise of equifinality is that regardless of where

the relational system starts, the end result is the same. SFT supervisors work with
trainees to see problems as interactional patterns between people and/or social con-
texts. These interactional dynamics occur within, between, and among subsystems.
The supervisor is guiding the supervisee to develop the ability to create different end
states. This is called equipotentiality and it is here that the SFT supervisor works with
the supervisee to understand the difference between process and content. Process is
who says what, to whom, in what way, with what outcome, whereas content is the
words that are actually said. SFT supervisors who are considering social contexts
might need to take more time to consider content (cultural knowledge) in order to
consider the processes of power, privilege, and bias.
The heart of systemic supervision looks through the lenses of recursion, feedback,
homeostasis, morphogenesis, morphostasis, rules, boundaries, openness, closedness,
equifinality, and equipotentiality. Learning systems is akin to learning a new ­language
and a new way of viewing problems through deeply ingrained, redundant patterns. It
takes time to move from a linear, individualist way of looking at problems, and when
we do, we also must begin to look at the larger systemic contexts. Hardy (2008) para-
doxically states: “But when working with minorities, you must ignore these concepts.
Thinking too systemically could force you to challenge many traditionally held beliefs
regarding therapy with minorities” (p. 467). If our supervision is truly systemic, we
will indeed be confronted with how racism and marginalization are deeply embedded
in the minority experience. All SFT supervisors come from at least one position of
power and privilege (i.e., educational), and we must be aware that our privilege can
cause us to miss systemic influences in marginalized populations. Remaining culturally
humble and learning to tolerate the ambiguity in conflicting intersectionalities is
essential to SFT supervision.

Learning Objective: Clarity of Purpose and Goals for Supervision

The purpose and goals for supervision can include meeting required hours for intern-
ship or licensure, learning more about a specific theoretical orientation, or focusing
on specific core competencies. Ideally, the supervisor and supervisee will negotiate the
goals together and they will align with the purpose of supervision. The essence of all
supervision goals is to develop confident, competent relational (systemic), and con-
textual therapists. Effective supervision contributes to the development of supervisees
who are confident in their own authentic style and is successful, effective, and ethical
in their work with clients. Foundational to reaching these goals is a quality supervisor–­
supervisee relationship.
The strength of the supervisor–supervisee relationship is a major contributor to
successful supervision. It predicts supervisee satisfaction (Ladany, Ellis, & Friedlander,
1999). It is directly related to the supervisee outcomes (Ellis & Ladany, 1997). The
supervisor–supervisee alliance also mediates burnout, secondary traumatization, vital-
ity for the supervisee (Deihl & Ellis, 2009), and the relationship between supervisor’s
multicultural competence and supervision satisfaction (Inman, 2006). Therefore,
building a trusting alliance between supervisor and trainee is foundational to meeting
the purpose and goals of supervision. Attending to self‐of‐the‐supervisee including
586 Marj Castronova et al.

setting goals related to exploring their own social location and identity and that of
their clients is also essential.
In considering clarity of SFT purposes and goals, the AAMFT core competencies
provide the standard. Couple and family therapy programs accredited by Commission
on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education (COAMFTE, 2017)
are required to have mechanisms in place to assess the development of student’s com-
petencies. When supervising postgraduate, pre‐licensing level supervisees, the core
competencies can continue to be a mechanism for assessing progress while accounting
for where the supervisee is developmentally.

Learning Objective: Clarity of Supervision

Roles and Responsibilities
Roles and responsibilities identified in supervision include teacher, coach, educator,
mentor, colleague, monitor, administrator, client care manager, guide, model, gate-
keeper, supporter, consultant, and so forth (Lee & Nelson, 2014; Morgan & Sprenkle,
2007; Taibbi, 1990). These roles and responsibilities must be managed carefully as
they often involve dual relationships such as thesis advisor, agency administrator in
charge of raises and evaluations, and clinical supervisor. For example, a faculty ­member
may be the trainee’s supervisor and their thesis advisor. If the student is missing
­deadlines related to their thesis work, it is not appropriate to bring that into the super-
vision relationship. These are separate roles that have different competencies for the
trainee to meet.
Some trainees may come from backgrounds where speaking up or questioning
someone in authority may be against their cultural value system. Other supervisees
may take up more talking turns in a group supervision setting and struggle to fully
listen to others. Supervisors need to be clear with supervisees that it is the responsibility
of all involved to listen with an open mind, share thoughts and ideas, suspended judg-
ment, embrace humility, and respect differences. The supervisor is responsible for
ensuring these responsibilities are embraced and followed in order to create a safe
working environment.

Learning Objective: Evidence of Awareness of Personal

and Professional Experiences That Impact Supervision
Relationship building involves knowing one’s self and knowing the other. In the
supervisory relationship, this involves both personal and professional knowing.
Ammirati and Kaslow (2017) have posed that “all supervisors are capable of deliver-
ing harmful supervision, and may have, in fact, harmed a supervisee at some point in
their career; this is a disquieting and sobering fact” (McNamara, Kangos, Corp, Ellis,
& Englann, 2017, p. 136). Reviewing what we know about the best and worst super-
vision experiences can help us to minimize harm. There are two key studies that guide
SFT supervisors in understanding the best and worst supervision experiences
(Anderson, Schlossberg, & Rigazio‐DiGilio, 2000; Piercy et  al., 2016). Anderson
 Supervision 587

et  al. (2000) used two dimensions of supervision, communication and respect, in
understanding quality supervision. The first dimension, communication, is strong
when supervisors are warm, friendly, trustworthy, and straightforward in feedback,
accepting of mistakes, encouraging experimentation, and providing experiences that
are safe and open to feedback. The second dimension, respect, is strong when super-
visees feel like they are respected and treated like a colleague, differences are valued,
new ideas are allowed, and there is an understanding of their personal time demands
(Anderson et  al., 2000). In Piercy et  al.’s (2016) qualitative analysis of the most
meaningful experiences in SFT training, supervision was more effective when it
included: theoretical foundation and practice, supervisor–supervisee relationships,
collaborative environment, client progress, self‐of‐therapist experiences, and
vulnerability.
In contrast, the least meaningful experiences were lack of personal connection, no
connection between theory and practice, negative experiences with clients, and lack of
diverse perspectives (Piercy et al., 2016). In considering the communication dimen-
sion, supervisees describe their worst supervision experiences as closed, rigid, critical,
“indirect and avoidant communication, emphasizing supervisees’ shortcomings, and
supervisors’ preoccupation with their own problems” (Anderson et al., 2000, p. 86).
Negative experiences in the second dimension, respect, are felt when supervisors are
“assuming authoritarian or demeaning stances, encouraging unthinking conformity,
failing to accept divergent viewpoints, and subtly devaluing supervisees on the basis of
gender” (Anderson et al., 2000, p. 86).
When considering supervisees’ impression of the quality of their supervision across
disciplines, the following was discovered: 57% of supervisees said that their supervi-
sion was outstanding; 65% of supervisees noted that their supervisors had specific
training in supervision; 51.5% of supervisees stated that they had received harmful
supervision at some point in their training; 25% indicated that they currently were
receiving inadequate supervision and that one‐third of these supervisees felt their
­clients were harmed by this; and 75.2% felt that they were experiencing or had expe-
rienced inadequate supervision (Ellis, 2010). These are sobering statistics.
In order for a supervisee to be open and share their anxieties, triggers, implicit
bias, personal background, and mistakes, the supervisor must also be vulnerable.
Mutual sharing contributes to a solid and safe foundation in the supervision relation-
ship (Rigazio‐DiGilio, 2016). Attention to person‐of‐the‐supervisor means being
aware of your own triggers, how your own background influences you, and recog-
nizing your own implicit bias. Supervisors that share self with trainees, while attend-
ing to professional boundaries, create an alliance that is more authentic. Sharing self
can include admitting your mistakes as a supervisor, willingness to repair versus being
defensive when you are challenged by a supervisee, sharing your own triggers and
how you manage them, and being more aware and attuned to issues of oppression
and marginalization. In quality supervision, Marovic and Snyders (2010) note that
the person‐of‐the‐supervisor is attentive to second‐order cybernetics where the
supervisor is reflective and recognizes the supervisor self as a professional self that is
subjective and limited in personal knowledge.
Supervision is one of the major contributors to a supervisee’s ongoing growth and
development, including learning to use self‐of‐therapist therapeutically (Aponte &
Ingram, 2018). Important to self‐of‐therapist work is the supervisee’s ability to use
their social locations, “lifestyle, values, and life experiences in forming working
588 Marj Castronova et al.

r­elationships, achieving insightful assessment, and implementing effective interven-

tions with their clients” (Aponte & Ingram, 2018, p. 45). While supervisors must
have boundaries to avoid doing therapy with their supervisees, it is still imperative that
the supervisee feel safe to talk about their personal experiences in relationship to how
they are impacting the therapy process. For instance, if a supervisee is going through
a divorce, they may need extra support to avoid transference with clients in similar
circumstances.
Hernandez and McDowell (2010) proposed that supervisors and supervisees need
to “acknowledge histories of oppression and be accountable for legacies of privilege
within local and global contexts” (p. 29) in their journey of self‐of‐the‐therapist.
When trainees are able to reach into their own painful history and recognize themes
attached to it, such as powerlessness and rejection, the trainee is better able to connect
and empathize with the client’s pain (Aponte & Nelson, 2018). The supervisee is
then able to provide the client with an experience where they are “heard by a society
that could be deaf and immovable, especially to people from relatively powerless sec-
tors of society” (Aponte & Nelson, 2018, p. 41). Conversations of difference can be
complicated. Supervisors must be aware of their own power and privilege in order to
authentically and with sensitivity engage in these discussions, ensuring that supervi-
sees are not silenced or, worse, experience oppression and marginalization similar to
what they experience in their everyday life.

Learning Objective: Preferred Supervision Models and the 

Connections Between Personal Therapy and Supervision Model
A continuing discourse in SFT supervision is whether we should or should not have
an agreed‐upon, research‐supported, systemic model (Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007;
Storm, Todd, Sprenkle, & Morgan, 2001; White & Russell, 1997). Early supervisors
had little formal training in supervision and relied on their particular theory to pro-
vide direction for training new clinicians. Today we know that the supervision rela-
tionship is different than the therapy relationship, the emphasis is different, and the
skills are different. When supervising from a specific model, the supervisor may
approach competencies through a specific theoretical lens. For instance, a strategic
supervisor may focus on developing skills of naming problems in ways that are solva-
ble, breaking redundant patterns, and learning to develop direct and indirect inter-
ventions. Many supervisors are broader in their supervision, and, while guided by
preferred theoretical models, they are also working from other frameworks. One such
framework is attention to the supervisee’s development (Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007;
Rigazio‐DiGilio, 1997). When supervising a trainee in their first semester of seeing
clients, the emphasis is different than supervising someone who has almost met all the
requirements for licensure. With a new trainee, a supervisor may coach the trainee on
how to greet a new client in the waiting room, for instance, say the client(s) name
rather than walking up to who you think your client is. This can help avoid assump-
tions based on the client’s name, referral source, presenting problem, or sexual
orientation.
White and Russell (1997) note that social role model is a useful framework for
supervision in that it addresses many dimensions similar to systemic thinking as it
 Supervision 589

considers supervisor variables, supervisee variables, relationship variables, supervision

process variables, and contextual variables. This framework also invites the supervisor
to stay attuned to their various roles (i.e., teacher, consultant, mentor) and to be
intentional about these roles. Roles can also include conceptual considerations, such
as monitoring, evaluating, instructing, advising, modeling, consulting, and self‐­
evaluating (Holloway, 1995). Feminist supervision models focus on five common
concerns: gender issues, power inequities, diversity issues, the role of emotion, and
process of socialization (Prouty, 2001). The supervision literature includes what
­constitutes good supervision, including skill‐based objectives like the AAMFT core
competencies (Nelson et al., 2007). Rather than looking for the “the systemic model”
of supervision, Morgan and Sprenkle (2007) proposed a common factors approach to
supervision looking for commonality across all supervision models and processes.
They proposed three dimensions: emphasis dimension (clinical and professional com-
petence), specificity dimension (supervisee, idiosyncratic and profession, nomothetic),
and relationship dimension (collaborative and directive). They also created a map of
four primary roles in supervision: coach, teacher, mentor, and administrator.
While we still have not created a unified systemic model of supervision that can be
tested and evaluated, supervision models such as a common factors or social justice
emphasis are present in our literature (ChenFeng et al., 2017; Karam, 2016; Sprenkle,
Davis, & Lebow, 2009; Zimmerman et  al., 2016). Regardless of the model or
approach, supervisors need to make sure their style of supervision is congruent with
their own approach to therapy. A good fit between the supervisor’s theoretical clinical
goals and approach to therapy and to supervision is imperative.

Learning Objective: Clarity of Preferred Process of Supervision

Quality systemic supervision takes place using many formats: individual, dyad, and
group; live, audio, video, or technology assisted; frequency; and contracting and
­evaluating. Systemic supervisors strive to use a combination of formats with their SFT
trainees, thus having the ability to provide feedback and case supervision from multiple
experiences.

Organization of supervision
In both the individual and group supervision formats, there are multiple formats that
can be used to enhance learning, such as co‐therapy, live, video, reflecting teams, or
case notes. The individual format of supervision is either one supervisee or a dyad of
supervisees and has consistently been the primary source of supervision in the SFT
field (Lee, Nichols, Nichols, & Odom, 2004). This type of supervision is intimate in
its format and allows for richer, relational development in order to build trust, take
more time to review cases, and maximize attention on the trainee’s development.
One‐on‐one time also provides a supervisee a private space for self‐of‐the‐therapist
work (Aponte & Carlsen, 2009).
The group supervision format includes a supervisor and three or more trainees up
to six or eight trainees depending on the ratio allowed by accreditation and governing
bodies. This format of supervision provides supervisees with multiple perspectives,
590 Marj Castronova et al.

social support, direct and indirect learning, group process (which must be monitored
carefully), and agreed‐upon goals and strategies for effectiveness and efficiency.
Additional group formats like reflecting teams and case presentation can enhance the
process.
In any setting, individual, dyad, or group, the supervisor establishes the level of
safety for the supervisee(s). In individual supervision the supervisor can focus on cre-
ating an alliance with the supervisee and attending to self‐of‐the‐therapist issues. In
group supervision there is a complex matrix of social locations in the room, including
power differentials, privilege differences, bias, and conflicting intersections, in and
between the supervisees and the supervisor. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to
be attentive to the interactions between the supervisees to create a safe space where
one voice is not privileged over any other voice/perspective (attending to power
dynamics). There is limited research on individual and group supervision; and our
premises about the effectiveness of individual and group supervision are based on
assumptions, rather than solid measures of effectiveness. Research is needing to learn
about the complexities of how power, privilege, and social location impact the dynam-
ics in group supervision. We know that trainees do experience marginalization in the
supervision process, and it is imperative that we understand when this happens and
learn to create safer environments and experiences for all trainees.

Formats of supervision
Observational (or direct) approaches to therapy such as live, video, and audio are
recognized as the strongest forms of supervising despite the lack of evidence
(Silverthorn, Bartle‐Haring, Meyer, & Toviessi, 2009). Some of the real issues influ-
encing the access to these types of supervision are coordination, ethical/legal issues
and liabilities, equipment/technology, the costs of people’s time (DeRoma, Hickey,
& Stanek, 2007), the trainee’s level of anxiety, and the client’s concerns. Essential to
the live and video formats are a positive, validating, and growing experience for the
trainee.
Live supervision is in real time and is one of the hallmarks of SFT supervision
(Storm et al., 2001). A one‐way mirror and/or technology that is ethical and legal
allows the supervisor to observe and work with the trainee while they are doing ther-
apy. We know that live supervision has a significant impact on the trainee’s perception
of the progress of therapy (Silverthorn et al., 2009); however we do not know if it
influences the effectiveness of therapy and trainee growth. The live format provides
the supervisor with an opportunity to provide instant feedback by using the call‐in
method or taking a mid‐session break.
The format of reviewing video or audio segments of sessions is a useful format for
observing micro as well as macro aspects of a session. This format provides opportuni-
ties for stopping and starting the video/audio of the session in order to discuss what
is happening and what the supervisee was thinking during that session. It is important
to consider how the supervisor–supervisee alliance, social locations, privilege, and
power might be playing into the type of video clips the supervisee is showing or not
showing. Questions to consider as follows: are they from a culture where it is impor-
tant to please someone in power; what does it mean culturally for the supervisee to be
vulnerable to a person of power; when the supervisor has more privilege, how does
 Supervision 591

this impact the supervision dynamic of the trainee showing a video clip of success with
a case verses being stuck with a case?
Case consultation is the highest used form of supervision (DeRoma et al., 2007)
where cases are discussed by reviewing case notes or a written case presentation where
trainees share their view of how they are conceptualizing the case, defining the
­presenting problem is, mapping the redundant pattern, generating the hypothesis,
creating the goals, and discussing possible intervention. The majority of supervision
occurs postgraduate and is done via case notes/case presentations. If SFT supervisors
are only doing case note supervision, they are deferring to the supervisee’s perspec-
tive. When assessing attunement to power and context, seeing sessions live or by video
can facilitate evaluating the process and content in this area. Not all supervisors have
access to a one‐way mirror, but this does not need to limit live and recorded formats.
Many HIPAA compliant platforms are available for recording and watching live
­sessions. Before you utilize this option, check with your state board to ensure you are
using state‐sanctioned platforms and formats. This can vary greatly from state to state.
Also consult with AAMFT for guidance at the national level regarding what is
recommended.
Technology has rapidly changed and enhanced our abilities to supervise, but the
laws and ethical codes have struggled to keep pace. Changing statutes that regulate
the profession take time, money, and lobbying. For instance, many states allow for
some continuing education credits to be “distance education,” but they do not allow
for online “real‐time” supervision. Technology that meets the ethical and legal stand-
ards can provide supervision that is live (real time), but online supervision is still in the
process of being recognized by licensing bodies. Another consideration is the laws
governing geographic regions; when supervisors live in different licensing regions,
these hours are rarely if ever counted for licensure. Some governing regions may allow
supervisors to watch a postgraduate trainee via an online live format, while other
states may only allow for an on‐site live supervision through a one‐way mirror.
Caldwell, Bischoff, Derrig‐Palumbo, and Liebert (2017) provide best practice guide-
lines and recommendations in regard to online couple and family therapy, and while
these are not specific to the supervision process, these best online practices can ­provide
guidelines for online supervision.
Bringing recorded therapy sessions to supervision is accessible given that the major-
ity of computers/laptops have recording capabilities and encrypted devices such as
USB flash drive can easily and affordably store the session. We know that monitored
and recorded sessions help the supervisee in their professional development; however,
Ellis (2010) noted that “When there was a bad working relationship, anxiety was
high; in a good working relationship, anxiety was low” (Ellis, 2010, p. 102).

Contracting and frequency
Supervision by nature is an agreement to provide certain services. A formal, clearly
written supervision contract with expectations is an important starting place for a suc-
cessful supervision experience. In order to develop an effective contract, the supervi-
sor should be clear about the frequency of supervision and the evaluation process that
will help both the trainee and the supervisor track progress toward goals that are
stated in the contract. Bernard and Goodyear (2009) have created a list of the basic
592 Marj Castronova et al.

essentials of a solid supervision agreement including supervisor’s background, meth-

ods, supervisor’s responsibilities, trainee’s responsibilities, confidentiality and risk
management policies, financial agreement (including fees, cancelations, frequency of
supervision), goals of supervision, evaluation of supervisee, expectations about state
laws and ethical codes, duration and termination of contract, and so forth. Supervisors
should check the literature, consult with colleagues, consider the state licensing laws
(required frequency and ratio of supervision), and AAFMT Code of Ethics (2015) in
terms of creating an inclusive supervision contract (Lee & Nelson, 2014). The super-
visory contract should clearly state how the supervisor expects the trainee to manage
the laws related to the limits of confidentiality including duty to warn, minors in
therapy, maintenance of records, ethical and legal compliance, suicide and homicide
ideations, child and elder abuse, and threats to national security.

Evaluation
Perosa and Perosa (2010) note that the vast majority of evaluations in supervising
SFTs are informal and this has come with great risks to the advancement of the SFT
profession. Accredited SFT training programs are required to document their success
in training clinicians and in doing so have developed evaluation tools. Evaluations in
the post‐master’s/pre‐licensure supervision process may be less formal or nonexist-
ent. Regardless of the type of evaluation process, we highly encourage SFT supervi-
sors to consider the AAMFT core competencies with the supervisees. These core
competencies provide a guide on specific skills needed for quality therapy and provide
supervisors with a guide to self‐reflect on their supervision process. Supervisors can
ask themselves questions such as “is the trainee showing competence in this area,” “is
my reaction more about a difference in therapy style or is this a competency issue,” or
“would I give this feedback if my trainee was male or white?” Engaging in self of
supervisor is important when giving feedback and evaluating. The core competencies
can also provide a way to give feedback when a trainee is struggling in an area. If a
trainee is missing documentation deadlines, review together the core competencies
that address this as part of creating an improvement plan. If a trainee is struggling
with implicit bias related to an identity of their client, review together the core com-
petencies that address this and create a treatment plan (i.e., readings, interviews,
meeting with persons from this identity who are in the profession). When a trainee is
impervious to change, the supervisor’s role as gatekeepers of the profession may be
necessary.
The supervisor can create a Likert scale and evaluate the supervisee on the AAMFT
core competencies that are related to the goals for supervision. Supervisors can also
use evaluation tools such as Gehart’s (2010) three rubrics for evaluating systemic case
conceptualization, clinical assessment, and treatment planning. D’Aniello and
Hertlein (2017) created an evaluation tool based on AAMFT core competencies.
Miller, Duncan, and Johnson (2002) developed the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) to
assess where the client’s progress and the Session Rating Scale (SRS) to gain feedback
from the clients on how the therapist is doing. Assessing the supervisor’s working alli-
ance and the trainee’s working alliance using the Working Alliance‐Trainee Version
(WAI‐T) (Bahrick, 1990) and the Working Alliance‐Supervisor Version (WAI‐S)
(Bahrick, 1990; Bordin, 1983) are also useful tools in evaluating the supervision
­process. Self‐of‐the‐therapist can be assessed using Aponte and Carlsen’s (2009)
 Supervision 593

Person‐of‐the‐Therapist Supervision Instrument and Post‐Supervision Questionnaire.

Avila et al. (2018) have developed a measure to assess the systemic dynamic in the
supervisory relationship. Being intentional in finding ways to evaluate the various
components of supervision is an important tool for the successful supervision.

Learning Objective: Evidence of Sensitivity to 

Ethics and Legal Issues
The SFT license is continuing to expand in its scope of practice and globally. It is
incumbent on the supervisor and the supervisee to know the laws that regulate the
professional field in the geographic location where they practice as these statues stipu-
late scope of practice, licensure requirements, confidentiality and/or privilege, man-
dated reporting, and who can use the SFT professional title. The scope of practice
(the kind of therapy services) the SFT can practice is stated in the laws and may differ
by jurisdiction. For instance, some US states allow MFTs to do psychological testing
while others do not. Diagnosing is permissible in some states and is not in others.
Globally, countries such as Russia are working toward creating common standards in
training and certification (Bebtschuk, Smirnova, & Khayretdinov, 2012). It is the
supervisor’s responsibility to guide the trainee through these complexities and to
assure they stay within their legal scope of practice.
Supervisors also need to be aware of how the governing body defines the type of
training, coursework, and supervision that an SFT trainee needs to become licensed.
The purpose of licensure and regulations is to protect consumers from harm and the
supervisor is often guiding the supervisee in this process. Governing bodies also have
specifics in terms of hours, such as how they are accumulated during graduate school
or how many can be counted toward the license. Reciprocity is another issue a super-
visee must consider, as it still is not a guarantee that an SFT license is 100% transport-
able between US states or other countries. Supervisors are responsible to be familiar
with the requirements of their governing body specifically in terms of laws that regu-
late the training and supervising of SFT trainees.
Knowing the laws and ensuring that they are followed is a collaborative process
between the supervisee and supervisor. When dilemmas and concerns come out in
supervision, it is the supervisor who guides the supervisee in doing the right thing
legally while teaching the supervisee how they came to that conclusion and what laws
guided those decisions and actions. It is important for the supervisor to have a clear
understanding of their governing laws in terms of reporting abuse (children, elderly,
and dependents), reporting threat to life, responding to subpoenas, limits of confi-
dentiality, and privilege. Laws vary in terms of reporting abuse, such as in “reasona-
ble” or “suspicion” as well as the length of time a therapist has to report. Confidentiality
can vary in different governing regions as some laws clearly describe the client as the
relational system and other laws are less clear and allow for one person in the system
to legally break confidentiality. Supervisors need to assure that trainees are providing
clarity to their clients as to the scope and limits of confidentiality in their disclosures
statements as part of informed consent for therapy.
Learning the process for ethical decision making is an important part of the devel-
opment of a competent SFT. Supervisors become the guide in assisting the supervisee
594 Marj Castronova et al.

to recognizing ethical situations and developing an ethical decision‐making process.

This includes knowing the scholarly literature, laws, ethical codes, when to consult
others, and so forth. Many ethical decision‐making models are in the literature and
can be useful when supervisors are guiding supervisees (Kitchener, 1985; Mowery,
2009; Vivian‐Byrne & Hunt, 2014; Zygmond & Borrhem, 1989).
The SFT profession is continually navigating technology, ethics, and law. While the
technology is available to do supervision online, the majority of governing bodies
have not made provisions for it, nor do they allow for supervisees to work with super-
visors from other states. The following states currently have laws allowing for online
supervision: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, New Jersey, Utah, and Wyoming
(Caldwell et  al., 2017). Models like emotionally focused therapy (EFT) (Johnson,
2000) have taken advantage of online supervision for certification; however, most
SFT state laws will only recognize supervision toward licensure that is done by a
licensed and approved supervisor in their own state. We have yet to realize the impact
and potential our SFT supervision can have globally in training and working with
families as we navigate through the complicated legal and ethical aspects. We as super-
visors, our trainees, and their clients are bombarded with information, and it has
­created new relational dilemmas for our clients and for us in how we practice, train,
and supervise.

Learning Objective: Awareness of Requirements for AAMFT

Membership, Regulatory Requirements, and Standards
for the Approved Supervisor Designation
The SFT field is highly invested in supervisors being specifically trained in systemic
supervision and offering outstanding and meaningful experience to supervisees. As
previously discussed, the AAMFT has developed the AAMFT AS designation, which
is a separate and specific designation requiring additional education and training. We
know that supervisors who have specific training in supervision had lower reports of
harm by their supervisees (Ellis, 2010). Requirements for becoming an AAMFT AS
can be found in the AAMFT AS Handbook available at www.aamft.org as well as what
is needed to maintain the AAMFT AS.
One of the biggest challenges to the AAMFT AS is the concept of intersectionality.
As we strive for more diversity in our supervision, we will be confronted with complexi-
ties and contradictions. We will need to learn “acknowledgement of differences and
related systems of oppression, domination, or discrimination that stem from a position
of power and privilege in society” (Gutierrez, 2018, p. 15). We are extremely limited
in our awareness and understanding of how this impacts our supervision process (Cho,
Crenshaw, & McCall, 2013; Hernandez & McDowell, 2010). If we really understand
that intersectionality demands our awareness and involves acknowledging oppression,
domination, and discrimination; what kind of changes might we make in how we
­mentor in the AAMFT AS? Is it possible that our expectations as a supervisor are filled
with the very essence of power, privilege, and bias? There are significant costs involved
in becoming an AAMFT AS, whether it is through a doctoral program or a master’s‐
level clinician pursuing the designation on their own. While the minority f­ellowship
scholarships have created financial incentives for training clinicians while they are in
graduate school, we have not made similar strides in the supervision training process.
 Supervision 595

In considering the contextual issues around the AAMFT AS designation, some

readers considering the designation may wonder if it is worth getting the designation,
and some trainees may wonder if it is worthwhile to find an approved supervisor
­versus a licensed professional to supervise them. We believe it is worth it for SFTs who
supervise. The commitment and emphasis on supervision is a testament to the welfare
of the clients and to the advancement of the trainee and the SFT field. The SFT field
believes that being an effective supervisor is a specialization beyond being a therapist.
It provides a solid framework through excellent training and mentoring and a solid
standard of care. SFT training and/or licensure is becoming more global and the
emphasis on supervision is central to this. We also believe it is worth it for supervisees
whenever possible, to work with a supervisor that is not only licensed, but also has
supervision training and preferably the AS destination.
We also know that supervision is the essential element for international students as
they report having a difficult time transferring US‐based MFT training (Guvensel,
Dixon, Parker, McDonald, & O’Harra, 2015; McDowell, Fang, Kosutic, & Griggs,
2012; Mittal & Wieling, 2006); international supervisees noted that supervisors
“guided and supported them to gain self‐awareness” and helped to “develop clinical
competency by focusing on the ‘self‐of‐the‐therapist’ rather than on how to apply a
specific approach or a set of techniques on a clients’ presenting issues”; mentorship;
and “positive impact of the strength of the supervisory relationship on their develop-
ment as an MFT” (Guvensel et  al., 2015, pp. 434–435). The students also felt it
would be important to “maintain a connection with their U.S. supervisor” upon
returning to their home country (Guvensel et al., 2015, p. 435). Globally there is a
call for a supervision standard. For instance, in Russia, there is a call for the develop-
ment of “common standards in training, certification and supervision” for systemic
family therapists as there is not a consistent common standard for supervision and it
is typically done as a part of “direct work with families in the training group under the
observation of experienced teachers and creates a unique opportunity for directional
formation of professional consciousness, skills and identification” (Bebtschuk et al.,
2012, p. 125).

Concluding Comments

Researching SFT supervision is difficult for a number of reasons: a lack of funding

sources and difficulty in attaining participants especially in the postgraduate arena;
however, it is “imperative that we conduct studies to examine the satisfaction and
outcome of supervision, for supervision is one part of what distinguishes SFTs from
other mental health professionals” (Cheon, Blumer, Shih, Murphy, & Sato, 2009, p.
63). In the last few years, our personal and professional worlds have expanded beyond
the imaginable. We are no longer restricted to a worldview that is in our immediate
vicinity; rather we have instant access to a global view and global exchange. Social
media has created simple connections to long lost friends and family members as well
as invited virtual strangers into our lives. Quick texts, acronyms, and emojis are forms
of communication. Search engines like Google and Alexa have given us instantaneous
access to information (some accurate and some not so accurate). No longer is there
waiting for the evening news—it is immediate. The images we see are no longer
­filtered or edited; rather they are real time and can be violent and graphic. It is hard
596 Marj Castronova et al.

to imagine what the early founders of the MFT field would say about how technology
has changed our world and influenced our relationships. Would Whitaker be doing
online therapy so every family member could be in the room? How would Bowen
posture emotional cutoffs with unfriending or ghosting someone on Facebook?
Would Satir create family groups on Facebook and have individuals do self‐reflective
blogs?
In considering the future of SFT supervision, technology is a vehicle that we need
to consider. It is the mechanism that lets us consider supervising globally. A supervisor
in the United States could work with an MFT trainee in Rwanda, and this could even
include live supervision. The use of technology will challenge our supervision process,
roles, goals, and models. Another area of consideration is the nature of the supervi-
sion relationship and the strength of the alliance. While we know alliance is essential,
we do not know the essential components of building the alliance. The vast majority
of our supervision research is housed in SFT graduate programs; given this, we know
little about supervision in the postgraduate, pre‐licensure setting. This limits our
understanding of what helps a trainee develop in supervision. In moving globally, we
also need to further our culturally sensitivity and be able to adapt as new information
enters the supervision process. How will our supervision change when we are working
in collectivist cultures? How will our supervision change when we are working in
contexts with ongoing war? Are there ethical challenges that we are unaware of?
Facebook saw a rapid explosion globally and encountered ethical situations they never
imagined. While the very beginning of the SFT field includes global perspectives (i.e.,
Milan), we are still working on translating our systems thinking (Bebtschuk et  al.,
2012; Ellis, Creaner, Hutman, & Timulak, 2015; Guvensel et al., 2015; Son, Ellis, &
Yoo, 2007). The AAMFT AS designation has been in existence for almost 50 years.
This is less than one lifetime, and given all the changes in our world and the explosion
of technology, we have accomplished more than one might imagine. How do we keep
improving the quality of SFT supervision and manage the change that is inevitable?
SFT supervisors are continually exposed to new and ever‐changing flows of informa-
tion, and since this is the essence of our systemic thinking, we have the ability to
continue to grow and change.

References

Ali, S. R., Flojo, J. R., Chronister, K. M., Hayashino, D., Smiling, Q. R., Torres, D., &
McWhirter, E. H. (2005). When racism is reversed: Therapists of color speak out about
their experiences with racism from clients, supervisees, and supervisors. In M. Rastogi &
E. Wieling (Eds.), Voices of color: First person accounts of ethnic minority therapists
(pp. 117–134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. (2015). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from
https://www.aamft.org/Legal_Ethics/Code_of_Ethics.aspx
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. (2016). Approved supervisor designa-
tion: Standards handbook. Retrieved from https://aamft.org/Documents/
Supervision/2017%20Supervision/June%202015_AS%20Handbook%20ver_Oct_%20
2016_toc%20to%20be%20edited.pdf
American Counseling Association. (2015a). Competencies for counseling the multiracial popula-
tion. Retrieved from https://www.counseling.org/docs/default‐source/competencies/
 Supervision 597

competencies‐for‐counseling‐the‐multiracial‐population‐2‐2‐15‐final.pdf?sfvrsn=
c7ba412c_14
American Counseling Association. (2015b). Multicultural and social justice counseling compe-
tencies. Retrieved from https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=D211US121
4G0&p=aca+multicultural+competencies
American Psychological Association. (2017). Multicultural guidelines: An ecological approach
to context, identity, and intersectionality. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/
policy/multicultural‐guidelines.PDF.
Ammirati, R. J., & Kaslow, N. J. (2017). All supervisors have the potential to be harmful. The
Clinical Supervisor, 36(1), 116–123.
Anderson, S. A., Schlossberg, M., & Rigazio‐DiGilio, S. (2000). Family therapy trainees’ evalu-
ations of their best and worst supervision experiences. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 26, 79–91.
Aponte, H. J. (1994). Bread & spirit: Therapy with the new poor. New York, NY: Norton.
Aponte, H. J., & Carlsen, J. C. (2009). An instrument for person‐of‐the‐therapist supervision.
Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 35(4), 395–405.
Aponte, H. J., & Ingram, M. (2018). Person of the therapist supervision: Reflections of a
therapist and supervisor on empathic‐identification and differentiation. Journal of Family
Psychotherapy, 29(1), 43–57.
Aponte, H. J., & Nelson, G. (2018). I matter, too. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 29(1),
40–42.
Avila, A., Distelberg, B., Estrada, A., Foster, L., Moline, M., & Huenergardt, D. (2018).
Dyadic supervision evaluation: An actor‐partner relational model. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 44(3), 470–482.
Bahrick, A. S. (1990). Role induction for counselor trainees: Effects on the supervisory working
alliance. Dissertation Abstract International, 51, 1484 (University Microfilms N. 90‐14,
392).
Bebtschuk, M., Smirnova, D., & Khayretdinov, O. (2012). Family and family therapy in Russia.
International Review of Psychiatry, 24(2), 121–127.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. Counseling Psychologist,
11, 35–41.
Boyd‐Franklin, N. (2003). Black families in therapy: Understanding the African American
experience. New York, NY: Guilford.
Burkard, A. W., Knox, S., Clarke, R. D., Phelps, D. L., & Inman, A. G. (2012). Supervisors’
experiences of providing difficult feedback in cross‐ethnic/racial supervision. The
Counseling Psychologist, 43(3), 314–344.
Caldwell, E. C., Bischoff, R. J., Derrig‐Palumbo, K. A., & Liebert, J. D. (2017). Best practices
in the online practice of couple and family therapy. (Report of the Online Therapy
Workgroup Presented to the Board of AAMFT 2/17/2017). Retrieved from https://
sextherapy‐online.com/wp‐content/uploads/2018/01/AAMFT_Best_Practices_for_
Online_MFT.pdf
ChenFeng, J., Castronova, M., & Zimmerman, T. (2017). Safety and social justice in the
supervisory relationship. In R. Allan & S. S. Poulsen (Eds.), Creating cultural safety in
couple and family therapy supervision and training, AFTA SpringerBriefs in Family Therapy
(pp. 43–56). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Cheon, H., Blumer, M. L. C., Shih, A., Murphy, M. J., & Sato, M. (2009). The influence of
supervisor and supervisee matching, role conflict, and supervisor relationship on supervi-
see satisfaction. Contemporary Family Therapy, 3, 52–67.
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies:
Theory, application, and praxis. Signs, 38, 785–810.
598 Marj Castronova et al.

Commission on Accreditation of Marriage and Family Therapy Education (COAMFTE).

(2017). Accreditation standards, version 12.0. Retrieved from https://www.coamfte.org/
documents/COAMFTE/Accreditation%20Resources/2018%20COAMFTE%20
Accreditation%20Standards%20Version%2012%20May.pdf
Constantine, M. G. (2001). Multiculturally‐focused counseling supervision: Its relationships to
trainees’ multicultural counseling self‐efficacy. The Clinical Supervisor, 20, 97–98.
D’Aniello, C., & Hertlein, K. M. (2017). Integrating gatekeeping practices into core compe-
tencies in MFT training: Development of the core competency‐based assessment measure.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 39(3), 220–229.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what
makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9, 67–85.
Deihl, L. & Ellis, M. V. (2009). The relevance of the supervisory working alliance in the supervi-
sion of residential frontline staff. Paper presented at the 5th International Interdisciplinary
Conference on Clinical Supervision, Buffalo, NY.
DeRoma, V. M., Hickey, D. A., & Stanek, K. M. (2007). Methods of supervision in marriage
and family therapist training: A brief report. North American Journal of Psychology, 9(3),
415–422.
Derrick, J. M. (2005). When turtle met rabbit: Native family systems. In M. Rastogi & E.
Wieling (Eds.), Voices of color: First‐person accounts of ethnic minority therapists (pp. 43–
63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ellis, M. V. (2010). Bridging the science and practice of clinical supervision: Some discoveries,
some misconceptions. The Clinical Supervisor, 29, 95–116.
Ellis, M. V., Creaner, M., Hutman, H. B., & Timulak, L. (2015). A comparative study of clini-
cal supervision in the Republic of Ireland and the U.S. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62,
621–631. doi:10.1037/cou0000110
Ellis, M. V., & Ladany, N. (1997). Inferences concerning supervisees and clients in clinical
supervision: An integrative review. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy
supervision (pp. 447–507). New York, NY: Wiley.
Falicov, C. J. (1995). Training to think culturally: A multidimensional comparative framework.
Family Process, 34, 373–388.
Gehart, D. (2010). Mastering competencies in family therapy: A practical approach to theory and
clinical case documentation. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gutierrez, D. (2018). The role of intersectionality in marriage and family therapy multicultural
supervision. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 46(1), 14–26.
Guvensel, K., Dixon, A. L., Parker, L. K., McDonald, C. P., & O’Harra, C. (2015). International
relevance and applicability of United States‐based marriage and family therapy training in
Turkey. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37, 426–441.
Hardy, K. V. (2008). On becoming a GEMM therapist: Work harder, be smarter, and never
discuss race. In M. M. McGoldrick & K. V. Hardy (Eds.), Re‐visioning family therapy (2nd
ed., pp. 461–468). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hardy, K. V., & McGoldrick, M. (2008). Re‐visioning training. In M. M. McGoldrick & K. V. Hardy
(Eds.), Re‐visioning family therapy (2nd ed., pp. 442–460). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hernandez, P., & McDowell, T. (2010). Intersectionality, power, and relational safety in
­context: Key concepts in clinical supervision. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 4(1), 29–35.
Hird, J. S., Cavalieri, C. E., Dulko, J. P., Felice, A. A., & Ho, T. A. (2001). Visions and realities:
Supervisee perspectives of multicultural supervision. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 29, 114–120.
Holloway, E. L. (1995). Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E., & Utsey, S. O. (2013). Cultural humil-
ity: Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
60(3), 353–366.
 Supervision 599

Inman, A. G. (2005). Preliminary validation of the supervisor multicultural competence inven-

tory. Unpublished Manuscript.
Inman, A. G. (2006). Supervisor multicultural competence and its relation to supervisory pro-
cess and outcome. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy., 32(1), 73–85.
Johnson, S. M. (2000). The practice of emotionally focused marital therapy: Creating connection
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Brunner/Routledge.
Jordan, K., & Fisher, U. (2016). History and future trends. In K. Jordan (Ed.), Couple, mar-
riage, and family therapy supervision (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Springer.
Karam, E. A. (2016). Integrating common factors into MFT supervision. In K. Jordan (Ed.),
Couple, marriage, and family therapy supervision (pp. 87–103). New York, NY: Springer
Publishing.
Kitchener, K. S. (1985). Ethical principles and ethical decisions in student affairs. In H. J.
Cannon & R. D. Brown (Eds.), Applied ethics in student services. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey‐Bass.
Ladany, N., Ellis, M. V., & Friedlander, M. L. (1999). The working alliance in clinical supervi-
sion: Relations with trainees’ self‐efficacy and satisfaction. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 77, 447–455.
Lee, R. E., & Nelson, T. S. (2014). The contemporary relational supervisor. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Lee, R. E., Nichols, D., Nichols, W., & Odom, T. (2004). Trends in family therapy supervision:
The past 25 years and into the future. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30,
61–69.
Marovic, S., & Snyders, F. (2010). Cybernetics of supervision: A developmental perspective.
The Clinical Supervisor, 29, 35–50.
McDowell, T., Fang, S., Kosutic, I., & Griggs, J. (2012). Centering the voices of international
students in family studies and family therapy graduate programs. Journal of Marital and
Family Science, 38, 332–347.
McNamara, M. L., Kangos, K. A., Corp, D. A., Ellis, M., & Englann, J. T. (2017). Narratives
of harmful clinical supervision: Synthesis and recommendations. The Clinical Supervisor,
36(1), 124–144.
Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., & Johnson, L. (2002). Outcome rating scale (ORS) & session rat-
ing scale (SRS). Retrieved from http://www.scottdmiller.com/performance‐metrics
Mittal, J., & Wieling (2006). Training experiences of international doctoral students in mar-
riage and family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 369–383.
Morgan, M. M., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2007). Toward a common‐factors approach to supervi-
sion. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 1–17.
Mowery, R. (2009). Expanding from ethical compliance to ethical empowerment: Supervisors are
key. Family Therapy Magazine, pp. 47–51. Retrieved from https://aamft.org/members/
familytherapyresources/articles/09_FTM_06_48_51.pdf
Nelson, T. S., Chenail, R. J., Alexander, J. F., Crane, D. R., Johnson, S. M., & Schwallie, L.
(2007). The development of core competencies for the practice of marriage and family
therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 417–438.
Perosa, L. M., & Perosa, S. L. (2010). Assessing competencies in couples and family therapy/
counseling: A call to the profession. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(2),
126–143.
Piercy, F. P., Earl, R. M., Aldrich, R. K., Nguyen, H. N., Steelman, S. M., Haugen, E., … Gary,
E. (2016). Most and least meaningful learning experiences in marriage and family therapy
education. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42(4), 584–598.
Pope‐Davis, D. B., Toporek, R. L., & Ortega‐Villalobos, L. (2003). Assessing supervisors’ and
supervisees’ perceptions of multicultural competence in supervision using the multicul-
tural supervision inventory. In D. B. Pope‐Davis (Ed.), Handbook of multicultural compe-
tencies in counseling and psychology (pp. 211–224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
600 Marj Castronova et al.

Prouty, A. M. (2001). Experiencing feminist supervision. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy,

12(4), 171–203.
Rigazio‐DiGilio, S. A. (1997). A cognitive‐developmental model for marital and family therapy
supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 11, 93–111.
Rigazio‐DiGilio, S. A. (2016). MFT supervision: An overview. In K. Jordan (Ed.), Couple,
marriage, and family therapy supervision (pp. 25–49). New York, NY: Springer.
Sangganjanavanich, V. F., & Black, L. L. (2011). The initial development of the multicultural
supervision scale. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory, and Research, 38,
18–36.
Silverthorn, B. C., Bartle‐Haring, S., Meyer, K., & Toviessi, P. (2009). Does live supervision
make a difference: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35(4),
406–414.
Son, E. J., Ellis, M. V., & Yoo, S. K. (2007). The relations amount supervisory working ­alliance,
role difficulties, and supervision satisfaction: A cross‐cultural comparison. Korean Journal
of Psychology, 26, 161–182.
Sprenkle, D. H., Davis, S. D., & Lebow, J. L. (2009). Common factors in couple and family
therapy: The overlooked foundation for effective practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
Storm, C. L., Todd, T. C., Sprenkle, D. H., & Morgan, M. M. (2001). Gaps between MFT
supervision assumptions and common practice: Suggestion best practices. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 221–232.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286.
Taibbi, R. (1990). Integrating family therapy: A model for supervision. Families in Society, 71,
542–549.
Vivian‐Byrne, K., & Hunt, J. (2014). Ethical decision making: Social metaphors towards
­ethical action. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 33(1), 1–15.
von Bertanlanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations development, applications.
New York, NY: George Braziller.
Walters, M., Carter, B., Papp, P., & Silverstein, O. (1988). The invisible web: Gender patterns in
family relations. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
White, M. B., & Russell, C. S. (1997). Examining the multifaceted notion of isomorphism in
marriage and family therapy supervision: A quest for conceptual clarity. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 23, 315–333.
Wong, P. T. P., & Wong, L. C. J. (2000). Multicultural supervision inventory. Retrieved from
http://www.drpaulwong.com/wp‐content/uploads/2018/03/Multicultural‐
Supervision‐Inventory‐MSI‐Wong‐Wong‐2000.pdf
Zimmerman, T., Castronova, M., & ChenFeng, J. (2016). Diversity and social justice in
­supervision. In K. Jordan (Ed.), Couple, marriage, and family supervision (pp. 121–150).
New York, NY: Springer.
Zygmond, M. J., & Borrhem, H. (1989). Ethical decision making in family therapy. Family
Process, 28, 269–280.