Jan 13 / Dr Rebecca Frost

Employer and Supervisor: the pros and cons of “in-house” Supervision

In-House Registrar Supervision:
A Thoughtful Look at the Pros, Cons, and Boundary Considerations for Employers and Registrars

Choosing how registrar supervision will be structured is one of the most important decisions made during the endorsement journey and one that affects registrars, supervisors, and employers alike.

For many practices, in-house supervision feels like the natural choice. It’s familiar, efficient, and often grounded in a genuine desire to support developing psychologists. In some settings, it works extremely well.

At the same time, in-house supervision introduces unique boundary, role, and power considerations that are worth examining carefully, not because it’s “wrong”, but because it carries responsibilities that are easy to underestimate.

This article explores the pros and cons of in-house supervision, from both employer and registrar perspectives, and why many programs are now taking a more blended or external approach.

What Is In-House Supervision?

In-house supervision typically involves a supervisor who:
  • Works within the same organisation as the registrar
  • May also be a manager, director, or practice owner
  • Has some influence over workload, performance, or employment conditions

This differs from external supervision, where the supervisor is independent of the registrar’s workplace.

Both models are permitted. The question is not whether in-house supervision can work but under what conditions it best supports learning, ethics, and wellbeing.

The Benefits of In-House Supervision

From an Employer Perspective...
  • Efficiency and integration
    In-house supervision is often easier to coordinate and aligns closely with the practice’s service model, client population, and risk management systems.
  • Consistency and quality control
    Supervisors embedded in the organisation understand internal policies, documentation standards, and expectations, which can support consistent clinical practice.
  • Investment in workforce development
    For many practices, offering supervision internally reflects a genuine commitment to growing and retaining skilled clinicians.
From a Registrar Perspective...
  • Accessibility and convenience
    Supervision is often easier to schedule, with opportunities for informal consultation alongside formal sessions.
  • Context-aware guidance
    In-house supervisors understand the realities of the registrar’s role, including time pressures, referral patterns, and organisational constraints.
  • Strong mentoring relationships
    When boundaries are clear, in-house supervision can offer continuity, support, and a strong sense of professional belonging.

Where the Challenges Arise: Boundaries and Dual Roles

The complexity of in-house supervision isn’t about competence or goodwill, it’s about dual relationships.

When a supervisor is also responsible for:
  • Performance management
  • KPIs or billable targets
  • Employment decisions
…the supervisory relationship changes in subtle but important ways.

For Registrars
Registrars may find it harder to:
  • Speak openly about mistakes or uncertainty
    Explore ethical dilemmas without fear of judgement
  • Raise concerns about workload, burnout, or scope of practice

Even in supportive workplaces, perceived consequences can influence what feels safe to disclose.

For Employers and Supervisors
Wearing both manager and supervisor hats can create tension between:
  • Encouraging best performance
  • Offering honest, “warts-and-all” developmental feedback

Supervision requires space for critical reflection, vulnerability, and ethical exploration, functions that don’t always sit comfortably alongside managerial responsibilities.

There is also increased risk when:
  • Early warning signs of burnout or ethical drift go unspoken
  • Supervision becomes task-focused rather than reflective
  • The registrar’s development is shaped primarily by organisational needs

The Hidden Cost of “Free” Supervision

Many organisations include in-house supervision as part of a registrar’s employment package. While this can appear cost-effective, it’s worth asking:
  • What is the opportunity cost of the senior clinicians’ time?
  • What isn’t being done when time is spent supervising?
  • Could that time be better invested in staff retention, leadership, or business development?

Supervision is only “free” if the supervisor’s time has no value which, in most practices, simply isn’t true.

Why Many Programs Are Moving to a Blended Model

Increasingly, registrar programs are adopting an external supervision or combined approach. This may look like:
  • In-house supervision or support for organisational integration and day-to-day support
  • External supervision for independent reflection, ethical clarity, and broader professional development

This model offers:
  • Greater psychological safety for registrars
  • Clearer role boundaries for supervisors
  • Reduced risk and greater transparency for employers

Rather than replacing internal expertise, external supervision complements it.

Supporting Both Registrars and Employers

Registrars today are increasingly thoughtful about where they train. Many actively ask prospective employers about:
  • Supervision structure
  • CPD quality
  • External support and training pathways

Practices that can confidently say, “We offer structured, independent registrar support” often stand out in a competitive labour market.

At the same time, employers benefit from knowing that registrar development, ethical oversight, and CPD are being handled in a way that protects both the clinician and the business.

Where PREP Fits

PREP was designed with a clear understanding of the real-world complexities of registrar training.

Our approach supports:
  • Independent, developmentally appropriate supervision
  • Clear separation between employment and evaluation
  • Ethical clarity and reflective practice
  • Employers who want high-quality training without absorbing all supervisory burden

Employers can remain involved as much or as little as suits their goals, from input into supervisor allocation and goal setting, through to structured feedback and collaboration without compromising the integrity of the supervision relationship.

A Final Thought

In-house supervision isn’t inherently good or bad. What matters is how thoughtfully it is implemented, and whether it truly supports learning, safety, and professional growth.

The most effective registrar programs recognise that:
  • Supervision is not just a requirement
  • Boundaries matter
  • Independent perspectives strengthen everyone involved

When supervision decisions are made with intention rather than convenience alone registrars thrive, supervisors are protected, and practices become more sustainable.

The team at PREP are always available to speak with registrars or their employers to help decide the best arrangement for your needs.

Get in touch with us at prep@benchmarkpsychology.com.au.