D1

Personal (Intrapsychic) Competencies

Basic personality traits (potentials) of importance for therapeutic work: self-reflection, mentalisation of one’s own states, affect regulation (neutralisation), empathy with preserved boundaries, tolerance of frustration and narcissistic injuries, integrity, communication style, focus on the client vs. one’s own needs.

D2

Therapeutic Mindset

Stances cultivated through training and supervision — different from everyday interpersonal positions: non-directiveness, value neutrality, stance of not-knowing, mature empathy, transfer of function to the client.

D3

Capacity to Build and Maintain the Therapeutic Relationship

How personal potential (D1) and mindset (D2) manifest in interaction: establishing contact (which precedes techniques), empathy in the relationship, consistency, non-defensive stance, regulation of self and other, transforming conflict into insight, sensitivity to differences.

D4

Toolset — Technical Competencies

Mastery of techniques of practice — basic (reflection, paraphrasing, drawing the point), psychodynamic (working with resistance, transference, countertransference, dreams), specific OLI (work on 8 basic emotional competencies, counter-skills) and working protocols (Authentic Personality, Life Strategies, Pricelist of Life Choices).

D5

Theoretical Knowledge and Understanding of Psychodynamics

Understanding of psychodynamic principles and processes, the PUNI model, the 4 psychoanalytic psychologies, the OLI theory of change, the 8 basic emotional competencies as a developmental map, character structures (deficit vs. conflict neuroses); the difference between declarative and procedural knowledge; theoretical foundation of the treatment plan.

D6

Establishing and Maintaining Setting, Working Alliance and Process

Conducting therapy as a process — from the first interview and setting up the therapeutic frame, through the working alliance, setting goals and operative treatment plan, setting boundaries, to the closing phase and ending.

D7

Ethics and Professional Integrity in Practice

Understanding and assimilation of the ethical code, recognising ethical dilemmas in the moment, the will to act ethically under pressure, deliberating complex dilemmas and acting responsibly (termination, referral, confidentiality, crisis situations).

D8

Self-Evaluation and Continuing Professional Development

Systematic reflective function on one’s own work — propensity for self-evaluation, honesty toward self and supervision, recognition of the zone of next development, active stance and reciprocity in supervision, CPD, gradual assumption of supervisory functions.

D9

Supplementary Competencies of the Professional Context

Collaboration with other professionals, risk assessment and crisis interventions, practice management, administration and self-care — competencies that develop largely after the completion of formal training.

DOMAIN 1 — Personal (intrapsychic) competencies (CI 1—9)

Basic personality traits (potentials) — the foundation of the profession

INDICATOR

BASIC LEVEL (trainee)

COUNSELLOR

PSYCHOTHERAPIST

DEVELOPMENTAL RISKS / CONTRAINDICATIONS

CI 1 — Self-reflection and relationship to learning

Capacity and willingness to examine one’s own work, attitudes, and reactions; openness to feedback.

Accepts feedback with the supervisor’s support. Begins to notice their own shortcomings, what is unclear and unnoticed in their work.

Actively uses supervision to examine personal patterns. Ready to change behaviour in their work.

Continuously reflects on their own work and uses supervision and personal therapy for deeper change of personal patterns.

Rejection of feedback, rigidity, ‘I know better’, defensive stance, inability to learn from experience.

CI 2 — Mentalisation of one’s own states

Capacity to recognise, name, and understand the causes of one’s own and other people’s emotions, thoughts, and impulses.

Notices basic emotional reactions with the supervisor’s help. Tries to explain them.

Recognises and names more complex inner states and distinguishes their own from the client’s. Actively seeks explanations for those states, reasons, motives. Able to verbalise them.

Stably mentalises their own processes and uses them as a source of understanding the client. When they sense their own mentalisation is insufficient, they seek supervision.

Confusion of own and client’s contents, failure to recognise emotions, impulsive reaction. Recounting events and sessions without mentalising.

CI 3 — Working with countertransference (intrapsychic level)

Capacity to recognise and process personal reactions in the relationship with the client, with understanding of their sources.

Notices that personal reactions exist in the work and is willing to bring them to supervision. Tries to mentalise them.

Recognises countertransference reactions and explores their meaning with the help of supervision or personal therapy.

Uses countertransference as an instrument of understanding without losing the professional position. Distinguishes transferential reactions (originating in the therapist’s earlier relationships) from spontaneous reactions to the client’s communication style.

Denial of countertransference, acting-out, unconscious reaction to the client. Possible breaches of the ethical code, entanglement in private relationships with the client. Departure from the basic therapeutic stance.

CI 4 — Affect regulation (neutralisation)

Capacity to manage one’s own emotional states in work and to transfer the function of regulation to the client.

May be flooded by the client’s emotions, or by their own reactions to the client’s story or to the relationship with the client; with the help of supervision, manages to return to a working position.

Generally maintains emotional stability and does not react impulsively. Behaviour is calm, soothing for the client, measured, rhythmic (breathing, speech).

Stably regulates affects and remains functional even in intense emotional situations. Through their calm, rhythmic presence, they transfer the function of regulation to the client.

Flooding, impulsive reactions, emotional reaction to the client.

CI 5 — Empathy with preserved boundaries

Capacity for the therapist to put themselves in someone else’s shoes and feel what the other person feels, but at a certain distance — for the client’s sake and to protect oneself from ‘burnout’.

Shows empathy but may be prone to flooding or distancing. May be more upset than the client (‘the mother who gets more upset than the child when the child falls’).

Develops stable empathy with preserved personal boundaries. Can put themselves in someone else’s shoes while keeping a certain distance.

Maintains a deep empathic connection without losing the professional position. Can empathise even with difficult clients, with those different from themselves, at an optimal distance.

Fusion with the client, distancing, rescuer relationship, ‘burnout’ from too many sad stories.

Selective empathy, only with those similar to oneself.

CI 6 — Frustration tolerance

Capacity to bear criticism, mistakes, uncertainty, and various kinds of frustrated needs without defensive reactions.

May react defensively to criticism or failure. Is directed to recognise that defensiveness.

Generally tolerates frustration and uses it for learning. Recognises various kinds of frustrated needs (not only narcissistic ones).

Stably tolerates uncertainty, mistakes, and limitations without disrupting the work. Recognises their own ‘Achilles heel’ — specific sensitivity to certain frustrations — and works on developing tolerance.

Omnipotence, need to be right, sensitivity to criticism, proving oneself, seeking gratification of frustrated needs in the therapeutic relationship (which falls under CI 7).

CI 7 — Focus on the client (vs. one’s own needs)

Capacity to maintain professional orientation — the therapist does not seek self-affirmation, admiration, love through the work, nor projects their own needs onto the client.

Occasionally focused on their own impression or performance — which is normal for beginners and decreases with experience.

Generally maintains focus on the client and the process.

Consistently maintains focus on the client without need for self-affirmation; distinguishes ‘what the client needs’ from ‘what I want the client to do’ and ‘what I want the client to need’.

Focus on oneself, need for admiration, using the client for personal needs, ‘rescuer complex’ (I have a need to rescue → the client ‘needs’ to be rescued).

CI 8 — Personal ethics and integrity

Inner alignment with ethical principles as a character trait, independent of the professional context (in contrast to D7 — application of the code).

Understands basic ethical principles and strives to follow them.

Consistently applies ethical principles and recognises risky situations.

Ethics is integrated into every aspect of work — not as application of rules, but as a natural expression of the personal value system; consistency between public and private behaviour.

Boundary violations, exploitation of the client, manipulation, eroticisation of the relationship.

CI 9 — Communication style

The basic communicative pattern of the person as the psychotherapist’s primary instrument — the capacity to recognise one’s own style and its impact on others.

With the help of supervision and group work, begins to notice their own communication style and its impact on other people (aggressiveness, passivity, avoidance, dominance, listening).

Recognises their own communication style, its strengths and limitations in work; consciously adapts the style to the needs of the client and context.

Communication style is a consciously used instrument; able to recognise how their style affects different clients and group processes; chooses the style of intervention with understanding of the consequences.

Unawareness of one’s own communication style. Failure to see that something happens in communication even when confronted with it. Stubbornness, uncritical attitude towards one’s own style.

DOMAIN 2 — Therapeutic mindset (CI 10—14)

Attitudes that are cultivated through training and supervision

INDICATOR

BASIC LEVEL (trainee)

COUNSELLOR

PSYCHOTHERAPIST

DEVELOPMENTAL RISKS / CONTRAINDICATIONS

CI 10 — Non-directiveness

The therapist does not impose solutions, does not direct the client where to go, but follows the client’s process. Non-directiveness means not taking over responsibility for the client’s life choices.

Understands the principle of non-directiveness, but occasionally gives advice or suggestions out of insecurity or under pressure from the client.

Stably maintains the non-directive stance, recognises their own impulses to direct, and chooses not to act on them. Can lay out possible alternatives and explore them with the client (pros and cons), but does not suggest a choice.

Non-directiveness is integrated into the working position; uses it flexibly. Understands when directing is therapeutically justified (suicidal risk, danger to self or others) — these being exceptions to the general rule.

Giving advice, ‘rescuer’ stance, the therapist as authority, imposing values, taking over responsibility for the client’s life choices.

Remains in this mode of work despite supervision and prompts towards non-directiveness.

CI 11 — Value-neutral stance

Does not evaluate the client’s behaviour and choices; does not give moral or life advice. Active yet neutral — analyses, asks for clarification, does not take a value position (different from passivity).

Recognises when they ‘slip’ into evaluation and can return to a neutral stance with the help of supervision. Becomes aware that not reacting to a significant topic can be interpreted by the client as approval or condemnation.

Consistently maintains a neutral stance even on topics where their values differ from the client’s. Active in inquiry (asks, seeks clarification) without taking a value position.

Neutrality is part of the professional identity; even on topics where their values differ from the client’s, they respond with a reflective question (what did the client feel, what reaction did they expect) instead of value judgement.

Moralising, pronouncing value judgements, identification with the client’s value system, superficial acceptance instead of neutrality, ‘glossing over’ topics that are sensitive for the therapist.

CI 12 — Stance of not-knowing

Openness to a joint search for truth — the opposite of the stance of ‘the expert who knows’. Distinguishes genuine not-knowing (an inquiring stance, open to learning) from defensive avoidance (hiding behind ‘I don’t know’ out of fear).

Understands the principle, but under pressure (the client ‘expects an answer’) prematurely offers an interpretation instead of discovering meaning together with the client.

Capable of remaining in a stance of not-knowing even when the client persistently seeks an answer (‘tell me what to do’, ‘you are the expert’); able to open questions instead of giving conclusions.

Uses the stance of not-knowing as a working tool. Offers ideas and hypotheses (not assertions that something is true), and explores those hypotheses with the client — how they sound to them, whether they make sense for them.

Plays the role of expert, the one who knows better than the client what is wrong. Offers assertions instead of hypotheses, does not ask questions seeking clarification.

Or hides behind passivity so as not to reveal how much they do not know.

CI 13 — Mature empathy

Empathy as a cultivated professional stance, distinct from everyday empathy — the therapist consciously chooses how and how much to enter into the client’s experience, with understanding of when it is therapeutically justified to modify the empathic response (confrontation, holding back deliberately). ‘Mature’ means neither naive (knows the limits of empathy) nor cold (authentically engaged).

Shows empathy but occasionally is flooded or pulls away to protect themselves. May be empathic for what is close to them and unempathic for what is not.

Develops a stable empathic presence that does not seek release from discomfort.

Empathy is an instrument of work; able to ‘break it’ in a therapeutically justified way (e.g. confrontation) without losing the basic stance.

Pseudo-empathy, fusing with the client, using empathy to avoid confrontation, sentimentality.

CI 14 — Transfer of function

Modelling basic emotional competencies through the therapist’s behaviour and gradually handing over to the client functions that the therapist has been performing (declarative and procedural learning, thinking aloud).

Understands the principle of transfer of function but in practice often ‘works for’ the client instead of helping the client to do it themselves; not sufficiently aware of their own functions and how they perform them.

Consciously chooses interventions that build the client’s capacities, not only those that resolve immediate discomfort; recognises in their way of working which functions they are performing and which need to be transferred to the client.

Systematically works on the transfer of functions; recognises signs that the client is taking over and chooses where to ‘step back’; transparent in their functioning, thinks aloud, enables internalisation of functions.

The therapist who ‘solves’ problems, the client who remains dependent, work without a developmental perspective; unable to be a model for functions (non-transparent, unable to transfer) or does not have these functions themselves.

DOMAIN 3 — Capacity to build and maintain the therapeutic relationship (CI 15—21)

The relationship as the field of work — the principle ‘contact before technique’

INDICATOR

BASIC LEVEL (trainee)

COUNSELLOR

PSYCHOTHERAPIST

DEVELOPMENTAL RISKS / CONTRAINDICATIONS

CI 15 — Establishing contact

Capacity to quickly establish accepting contact with the client (or group) in which the client (or group members) feel safe in exploring their own psychic contents.

Establishes contact with intact, motivated clients; with more difficult or distanced, inadequately motivated clients, requires the help of supervision.

Establishes contact with various clients, including those with resistance or anxiety at the first encounter.

Establishes contact even with the most difficult clients (psychotic, borderline, withdrawn) and is able to reflect on this in supervision.

Forcing closeness, pseudo-warmth, working from the position of a ‘friend’, failure of contact with ‘more difficult’ clients. Lack of self-criticism, attempts to work even when contact cannot be established, failure to see one’s own limits.

CI 16 — Empathic quality in the relationship

Compassionate presence the client experiences as presence and understanding rather than as a technique (how empathy from D1 and D2 manifests in actual work).

Empathy is visible at moments of clear client suffering; harder with subtler signals.

Empathy is consistent throughout the session, even when the client withdraws emotionally or offers ‘wrong’ emotions.

Empathy is part of presence, not an activity; the client experiences it before the therapist ‘does’ anything empathic.

Verbal empathy without emotional grounding, the formula ‘I understand you’ without real understanding.

Lack of empathy, interventions that demonstrate this, selective empathy.

CI 17 — Consistency in the relationship

The same basic position across different emotional states of the client — a psychological container in which the client can express different states. Also refers to states of the therapist (moods, good/bad days) which must not be brought into the session.

Consistency is good in stable sessions; under pressure (client’s anger, crisis) may react differently than usual.

Maintains the same basic position even with intense client emotions; the client has a reliable experience of ‘this therapist is the same’.

Consistency is stable even in complex situations (transference, conflicts); consistency is part of the therapeutic instrument.

Variability depending on the client’s mood, dull-formal consistency (rigid), inconsistency in crisis.

CI 18 — Non-defensive stance

Does not react defensively to criticism, anger, or pressure from the client — critical affects become material for the work.

Under criticism from the client, occasionally enters into explanation or justification (instead of exploring it).

The client’s criticism and anger become material for the work, not a threat to the therapist.

Welcomes critical affects as an important phase of work; does not need to ‘soften’ them in the moment.

Defensiveness, justification, withdrawal, counterattack, shifting to the client.

CI 19 — Continuous regulation of self and other

Maintains themselves in a working position and supports the client to do so — regulation is interactive, not ‘from outside’.

Regulates themselves with the help of supervision; regulation of the client often goes through ‘calming’, ‘consoling’ instead of through containing.

Regulates themselves independently during the session; helps the client regulate themselves (does not regulate them ‘from outside’).

Regulation is interactive — maintained in contact with the client’s affect.

Pre-emptive interventions for soothing, coldness as self-defence, loss of regulation under pressure.

CI 20 — Turning conflict into insight

Does not avoid tensions in the relationship, uses them as material for the work.

Recognises when tension arises but is still inclined to avoid it or ‘smooth it over’.

Opens tension in the relationship as a working topic (‘I noticed something has changed between us…’).

Systematically uses tensions in the relationship as a window into the client’s inner dynamics.

Avoidance of tension, ‘artificial harmonisation’ of the relationship, superficial therapeutic alliance.

CI 21 — Sensitivity to difference and diversity

Recognises various dimensions of diversity — cultural, class, generational, gender and gender-identity, religious, linguistic, power imbalances, disability, immigration status, neurodivergence — and how these dimensions affect the dynamics of the therapeutic relationship.

Aware of obvious differences (cultural, generational); may miss subtler dimensions (class, identity, power imbalances).

Actively reflects on how their position differs from the client’s (along several dimensions) and how this affects the work.

Sensitivity to difference is part of therapeutic thinking; able to thematise difference with the client when relevant; aware of their own blind spots and power imbalances.

Assumption of homogeneity (‘we are all the same’), stereotyping, projection of one’s own cultural/social position, ignoring power imbalances.

DOMAIN 4 — Toolset (technical competencies) (CI 22—32)

Mastery of concrete working techniques — from foundational to OLI-specific

INDICATOR

BASIC LEVEL (trainee)

COUNSELLOR

PSYCHOTHERAPIST

DEVELOPMENTAL RISKS / CONTRAINDICATIONS

CI 22 — Foundational techniques (reflection, paraphrasing, drawing the point)

Mastery of fundamental techniques of presence in conversation.

Uses reflection and paraphrasing; occasionally mechanical or with uneven pacing.

Attempts at clarification, insufficient sensitivity to ambiguities in content.

Selects techniques from a sense of the moment; able to draw the point of the client’s account in concise form, recognise ambiguities and inconsistencies, and ask for clarification.

Techniques are invisible in the work — the client does not notice that ‘a technique is being used’; able to use silence as a technique as well.

Mechanical application, ‘parroting’, absence of reflection, drawing the point too quickly.

Instead of reflecting they advise, instead of clarifying they take things for granted, instead of drawing the point they get lost in content.

CI 23 — Working with resistance

Recognising, confronting, and analysing resistance as part of the psychodynamic process.

Recognises obvious forms of resistance (lateness, avoidance of a topic); working with resistance requires the help of supervision.

Recognises subtler forms of resistance and begins to work with them in the session.

Resistance is a topic for the work, not a hindrance; able to use resistance to illuminate the client’s inner dynamics.

Forcing through resistance, ignoring resistance, ‘breaking’ resistance, condemning resistance, premature interpretation or assertions that some behaviour is resistance instead of examining it together with the client.

CI 24 — Working with transference

Recognising and using positive and negative transference in the work.

Recognises clear manifestations of transference; knows the theoretical procedure but in work may become ‘confused’ under intense transference.

Works with positive and negative transference with the help of supervision; transference becomes material for therapy.

Systematically works with stronger transferences, including erotic and aggressive ones; does not become unsettled or react defensively.

Denial of transference, rationalisation (transference normalised as a general reaction rather than as a clinical phenomenon: ‘the client is under stress’, ‘it’s natural’, ‘all new clients are like this’), being drawn into the transference field (gratification).

CI 25 — Working with countertransference (operative level)

Translating personal reactions into clinical information and interventions (different from D1 — intrapsychic capacity). Distinguishes personal countertransference (the therapist’s own transference — worked through in personal therapy) from spontaneous countertransference (a reaction to the client’s communication style — a clinical instrument).

Recognises that they have reactions to the client; processing goes through supervision, not in the session. Learns to recognise that reactions have different sources (personal vs. spontaneous).

Uses their own reactions as a source of hypotheses about the client; chooses interventions consciously. Asks: ‘Is the reaction personal or information about the client?’ — chooses between supervision and clinical formulation.

Countertransference is an instrument; able to build interventions out of their own reactions without losing the professional position. Operatively uses the spontaneous; the personal is followed through their own work.

Acting-out of countertransference, projection onto the client, substitution of ‘what I feel’ for ‘what the client needs’. Central risk: confusing personal and spontaneous countertransference (attributing everything to oneself → self-pathologisation; interpreting everything as spontaneous → pathologisation of the client).

CI 26 — Synthesis and reconstruction (counter-skills, secondary gain)

Connecting the client’s patterns into a system of counter-skills; recognising secondary gain and emotional accounting. PUNI: counter-skills are linked to outcomes so that the client gains a motive for change — a turning point for working on the development of competencies.

With the supervisor’s help, recognises individual counter-skills in the client’s functioning.

Independently connects patterns into a coherent system of counter-skills; presents this to the client in an appropriate form. Connects this with the client’s problems.

Synthesis is a continuous analytical process; able to recognise how the client’s system of counter-skills changes over time.

Recognises them across different domains — private, professional — as a general schema of functioning.

Mechanical application of the formula ‘counter-skill → defence’, absence of connection, premature ‘solution’.

Blaming the client for counter-skills, moralising, coercing them to abandon them.

CI 27 — OLI-specific techniques (work on the 8 basic emotional competencies)

Knowledge and application of techniques for the development of the 8 basic emotional competencies, with understanding of the purpose of each technique, the phase of work in which it is applied, and the capacity to adapt the technique to the needs of the specific client.

Knows some techniques for the development of competencies but lacks a developed capacity to recognise when and how to apply them; applies them ‘by the book’ — as taught — without grasping the meaning of the technique and unable to adapt them to the specific client.

Independently selects a technique from the repertoire according to the client’s deficit; recognises change in the competency.

Through their own behaviour, gives the client a model of how competencies function.

Techniques are integrated into the work; applies the principle of the ‘zone of next development’. Procedurally and declaratively able to transfer functions.

Application of an ‘isolated technique’ without recognising which competency is in deficit. Tries to develop in the client, by means of techniques, a competency they themselves have not sufficiently developed.

CI 28 — Working with dreams and free association

Mastery of classical psychoanalytic techniques for analysing the unconscious: working with free association, dream analysis, parapraxes.

Understands the theoretical principle; in working with dreams may miss elements or ‘interpret’ them too much (prematurely).

Works with dreams as part of regular work; able to open associations without forcing interpretations.

Does not rush the analysis of associations and dreams, lets associations unfold until meaning emerges. Also uses their own associations as a source of insight — sharing them with the client when this is appropriate to the task.

Mechanical ‘decoding’ of dreams, ignoring dreams as technically demanding, projecting one’s own meanings onto the dream. Assertions about what the dream means. Approaching dreams as if there were a code-book or dream-dictionary with fixed meanings of symbols, instead of seeking the client’s meanings.

CI 29 — Understanding why and when a technique is used (meta-competency)

Capacity for the therapist to link the choice of technique with theoretical understanding of the client, the phase of work, and the OLI taxonomy of psychotherapeutic goals.

Selects techniques by the rule ‘what I have learned for this situation’; reflection on the choice happens in supervision.

Still uses the technique exactly as written, unable to modify it — to keep its function while not making the work a literal copy of the original instructions.

Selects techniques consciously, with understanding of why precisely now; able to change the intervention in the moment, modify the technique, apply it in conversation without explicitly repeating the instructions for how the technique is ‘performed’. Understands the purpose of the technique.

The choice of technique is integrated into clinical thinking; able to explain the choice to others in supervision. Explicitly links the choice of technique with the OLI taxonomy of psychotherapeutic goals (which competency we are working on, what phase the work is in, what the next goal is).

Mechanical use of techniques without conceptual linkage, without understanding the function of the technique. Uses techniques to fill a gap or to display their own competence — to show that they know various techniques.

CI 30 — Two levels of work (content vs. process)

Capacity for the therapist to follow simultaneously two levels: the level of content (what the client is talking about) and the level of process (how the client speaks, what is happening in the relationship, how they process the content).

Mostly follows the level of content; the level of process is occasionally noticed but not systematically returned to.

Systematically follows both levels; able to recognise when the level of process is more important than the level of content and to thematise it.

The two levels of work are an integrated methodology; at every moment chooses where the intervention is most productive (content, process, or their connection); able to move between levels and to explain the difference to the client.

Getting stuck in content (therapy becomes a conversation about problems), getting stuck in process (losing contact with the client’s life themes), inability to recognise on which level ‘something is happening’.

CI 31 — Declarative and procedural knowledge in the work (operative application)

Capacity for the therapist to consciously use both the declarative and the procedural level of work — knowing that the client learns both through words (interpretation) and through experience of the relationship (‘moments of meeting’).

Mostly works on the declarative level (interpretations, explanations, education); the procedural effect of the relationship is noticed but not used systematically.

Understands that the client also changes through the experience of the relationship, not only through insight; intentionally creates situations of ‘moments of meeting’ as part of therapy.

Operatively manages both levels; chooses when declarative work (interpretation, explanation) is appropriate, and when procedural work (experience of the relationship, regulated presence, new emotional exchanges) is primary.

Getting stuck in declarative work (‘conversation about problems’), naive faith in the power of interpretation, underestimating the procedural effect of the relationship; or — conversely — abandoning interpretation and reducing therapy to ‘corrective experience’ alone.

CI 32 — OLI working protocols (Authentic Personality, Life Strategies)

Mastery of structured OLI working protocols in three modes of application: complete form / abbreviated / integrated into the conversation.

Knows the protocols at the level of description; applies them with supervision, occasionally mechanically or outside the appropriate phase of therapy. Personal work through the protocols is a prerequisite.

Independently applies the protocols; understands when each is indicated and how it fits into the broader treatment plan. Selects the mode of use.

Protocols are integrated into the work; able to adapt them to the client’s specifics; understands their theoretical basis and clinical function.

Mechanical application of protocols, using protocols to avoid more complex relational work, reducing therapy to a sequence of protocols.

DOMAIN 5 — Theoretical knowledge and understanding of psychodynamics (CI 33—42)

Psychodynamic theory, the PUNI model, the four psychoanalytic psychologies, treatment plan

INDICATOR

BASIC LEVEL (trainee)

COUNSELLOR

PSYCHOTHERAPIST

DEVELOPMENTAL RISKS / CONTRAINDICATIONS

CI 33 — Basic psychodynamic premises

Understanding of conscious/unconscious, symptom as compromise, defence mechanisms, secondary gain.

Knows the key concepts at the level of definition; application in clinical reasoning is inconsistent.

Uses psychodynamic concepts in working with the client — connects symptoms with internal conflicts and patterns.

Psychodynamic thinking is the ‘working language’; integrates several theoretical levels simultaneously (structure, dynamics, development).

Mechanical application of theory, diagnostic labelling, reductionist interpretation.

Does not think psychodynamically, only ‘common-sensically’.

CI 34 — Understanding the psychodynamic process (resistance, transference, countertransference, working through)

Understanding how the unconscious manifests in the therapeutic process and how it is translated into the conscious.

Understands the concepts and recognises obvious manifestations; subtler examples often go unnoticed.

Actively uses the concepts in considering the client; sees them as interconnected.

Process concepts are part of everyday clinical thinking; able to track working-through over time.

Concepts as labels, absence of process understanding, static vs. dynamic picture of the client.

CI 35 — Understanding the PUNI model

Psychodynamic logic of the cycle Needs → Beliefs → Patterns → Outcomes (PUNI is an OLI brand acronym retained from Serbian: Potrebe — Uverenja — Načini — Ishodi); counter-skills are Beliefs + Patterns, which include not only unconscious defences but also conscious habits, strategies, and behavioural patterns.

Knows the model at the level of structure; applying it to a specific client requires help.

Uses PUNI as a working tool for understanding the client; recognises the dysfunctional cycle and counter-skills. Understands that counter-skills are not only unconscious defences but also conscious habits and strategies. Connects counter-skills with unwanted outcomes — the client’s complaints.

PUNI is part of clinical thinking; identifies therapeutic change (transformation of needs, correction of beliefs, replacement of counter-skills with developed competencies). Distinguishes layers of counter-skills — from conscious strategies to deep unconscious defences.

Mechanical application of the schema, reducing the client to a PUNI template without understanding the logic of the model.

Unable to discern patterns (beliefs and behaviours), does not generalise, remains stuck on concrete content.

Unable to connect counter-skills with outcomes.

CI 36 — Understanding OLI theory of change

How change occurs in the OLI framework: replacing counter-skills with developed emotional competencies.

Understands the theoretical premise; struggles to apply it to the current work with the client.

Sets therapeutic goals in line with the logic of change (which competency we are working on, what to replace).

The logic of change shapes all interventions; able to recognise when change is structural and when it is only symptomatic.

Work without a developmental perspective, focus only on the symptom, failure to see counter-skills which ‘migrate’ across different contexts.

CI 37 — Understanding the 8 basic and complex emotional competencies of the OLI method

Understands what mature competency looks like and how deficits manifest. Knows the developmental phases of each competency, can identify a halt and the zone of next development. Distinguishes declarative from procedural knowledge.

Knows the list and basic definitions of the 8 basic competencies; the differences between competencies in practice are unclear; does not clearly recognise manifestations of halts. Complex competencies are understood theoretically.

Recognises deficit in each of the 8 basic competencies; understands the developmental logic among them. Connects deficits in basic competencies with shortcomings in more complex competencies, in love and work.

Basic and complex competencies form an integrated developmental map: able to set out ‘where we are now’ and ‘what comes next’ for the specific client. Understands how developed basic competencies enable complex ones, and clearly connects this with the client’s problems.

Mechanical ‘work on a competency’ without understanding, missing the developmental logic. Does not recognise competency deficits in the client’s functioning — follows only content, unable to discern process — the ways experience is processed.

CI 38 — Understanding character structures and psychopathological patterns

Understands how personality patterns (narcissistic, borderline, obsessive, and others) are connected with deficits in competencies. Distinguishes deficit neuroses (early developmental halts) from conflict neuroses (intrapsychic conflicts).

Knows the major structures at the level of description; for working with specific patterns seeks supervision.

Recognises patterns in clients of various character structures and adapts the work. Distinguishes deficit neuroses (work on strengthening ego functions) from conflict neuroses (work on the id-ego-superego conflict).

Character structures are part of diagnostic thinking; ready for greater countertransference challenges in work with more serious halts (‘pathology’) in deficit neuroses. Capable of identifying missing functions and building them.

Labelling the client, diagnostic reduction, using patterns to avoid encounter. Mistakenly treating a deficit neurosis as a conflict neurosis. Does not see patterns, follows only content.

CI 39 — Abstraction (linking theory with clinical material)

Capacity to link a concrete case with the theoretical framework — necessary for preparing a case presentation.

Abstraction is difficult; theory remains on one plane and the client on another.

Able to connect individual events with broader theoretical patterns; writes a case presentation that has a conceptual backbone.

Abstraction is continuous; able to construct original linkages between theory and the client’s material; the case presentation is integrative.

Abstraction without contact with the client (theory ‘floats’), descriptive work without theory, pseudo-linkage (‘everything is everything’). Or no linkage at all, only retelling the events of sessions.

CI 40 — The four psychoanalytic psychologies as the basis of OLI

Understanding of the four psychoanalytic psychologies (drive psychology, ego psychology, object relations, self psychology) as the theoretical basis on which OLI integratively rests.

Knows the four psychologies at the level of definition; the differences between them in clinical thinking are unclear.

Recognises which psychological perspectives are relevant for the specific client; understands how different perspectives are used complementarily within the OLI integrative approach.

The four psychologies form an integrated theoretical language; able to choose the optic for a concrete clinical problem; understands why OLI is not ‘eclectic’ but ‘integrative’ — synthesises perspectives according to developmental logic and clinical indication.

Eclecticism without theoretical backbone (‘a bit of everything’), bias towards one psychology, mistaken matching (e.g. self psychology where ego psychology is primarily needed). Lack of knowledge of the four psychologies — the psychotherapeutic level without understanding of the theoretical foundation.

CI 41 — Understanding declarative and procedural knowledge

Understanding the difference between declarative (verbal, explicit) and procedural (embodied, implicit) learning and memory, with clinical implications (Stern, Lyons-Ruth, Fonagy, BCPSG).

Knows the concepts at the level of definition; understands that there is a difference but its clinical meaning is unclear.

Understands the clinical importance of the distinction — knows that the client has both declarative and procedural knowledge, that much procedural knowledge is not accessible through verbal interpretations; applies this in understanding the client.

The distinction is integrated into clinical thinking; understands that procedural structures change through the experience of the relationship (‘moments of meeting’) and not only through insight; integratively links the declarative (interpretive) and procedural (relational) levels of work.

Naive belief in the power of interpretation (everything can be resolved through insight), neglect of the procedural level; or — conversely — abandoning interpretation and reducing therapy to ‘corrective emotional experience’ alone.

CI 42 — Treatment plan — theoretical foundation

Capacity for the therapist to derive a treatment plan from theory — knowing from which theory which goals are derived, which competencies are stalled, and what the developmental logic of the work is for the specific client.

The treatment plan is theoretically indistinguishable; goals are mostly symptomatic and not connected with the developmental map.

Derives the treatment plan from the theoretical framework: recognises deficient competencies, sets developmental goals, distinguishes symptomatic from structural goals.

The treatment plan is theoretically coherent and developmentally grounded; able to articulate which theoretical sources each part of the plan comes from; distinguishes OLI developmental logic from symptomatic work; integratively uses different psychoanalytic psychologies.

The treatment plan as a mere ‘list of goals’ without theoretical foundation; mechanical template application; failure to see the developmental logic; setting goals beyond the client’s zone of next development.

DOMAIN 6 — Setting, working alliance, and process: establishing and maintaining (CI 43—51)

The operative framework of therapeutic work — from the first interview to the final phase

INDICATOR

BASIC LEVEL (trainee)

COUNSELLOR

PSYCHOTHERAPIST

DEVELOPMENTAL RISKS / CONTRAINDICATIONS

CI 43 — Establishing the therapeutic setting

Defining the mode of work, frequency, session length, fee, cancellation rules; orienting the client to the logic of therapy — whose work and responsibility is what, what the setting serves.

Establishes the setting according to the model from training; with client resistances (‘can it be cheaper, less frequent?’) seeks the help of supervision.

Establishes the setting independently and distinguishes what is negotiable from what is not.

Establishes the setting with understanding of the psychological function of every element (e.g. why the same time every week, why missed sessions are made up).

A loosened setting, accommodating to the client under pressure, therapy without a frame, a ‘friendly’ style.

Persuading the client that they need therapy.

CI 44 — Maintaining the setting under pressure

Capacity not to alter the setting on the client’s intuitive demand.

Under pressure (the client demands a change) may slip — but knows it is a mistake and discusses it in supervision.

Holds the setting under pressure; distinguishes legitimate needs from testing.

Maintaining the setting is part of the therapeutic intervention; able to use pressure on the setting as clinical material.

Yielding under pressure, rigid refusals that do not consider the client, therapy becoming ‘about the setting’.

CI 45 — Conducting the first interview

Mastery of the structure of the first contact — from agreement to setting the frame.

Conducts the first interview by template; may miss subtler signals about the client.

Conducts the first interview flexibly; able to make a decision about acceptance based on the first encounter.

The first interview is a diagnostic space and the beginning of therapy at the same time; integrates multiple sources of information.

Turning the first interview into a questionnaire, quick ‘acceptance’ of the client without assessment, comparing with the supervisor instead of with the client.

CI 46 — Setting realistic therapeutic goals

Together with the client, arrives at realistic goals with understanding of the possibilities of the approach.

Sets goals in line with what the client says they want; struggles to distinguish manifest from latent goals. Accepts symptomatic goals (‘to feel better’, ‘for the symptoms to pass’) without orienting the client to what needs to happen in terms of internal change.

Sets goals that take into account the client’s psychodynamic possibilities and the approach.

Goals are adjusted through the process; understands the difference between symptomatic and structural goals.

Unrealistic goals (too demanding or too low), goals the therapist sets for themselves rather than for the client, failure to revise goals.

CI 47 — Building the working alliance

Defining what is the client’s and what is the therapist’s responsibility in the change process; what they are working on together. The working alliance is not a fixed agreement — it can change during therapy as new therapeutic goals open up and as the therapeutic process develops.

Understands the principle of the working alliance; in work often ‘works for’ the client instead of establishing the alliance.

Explicitly establishes the division of responsibility; brings the client back to their part when they avoid responsibility. Connects the client’s patterns with the possibilities of achieving the goals (the PUNI model).

The working alliance is alive; able to recognise breaches of the alliance and to repair them.

Recognises oscillations in the working alliance, explores them with the client, recognises new goals and forms a new working alliance for the new goals.

A pseudo-alliance — a formal agreement without the sense that the alliance has truly been formed; an agreement on the medical model where the client is a passive recipient of a service and the therapist a service provider and the one who changes the client, instead of being collaborators in the change process.

CI 48 — Setting boundaries

Therapeutic distance, avoiding dual relationships, boundaries in contact outside sessions. When the client breaches the therapist’s boundaries, or the therapist the client’s, or the boundaries of the professional relationship.

Understands the rules; under pressure (gift, invitation) may react unsuccessfully.

Sets boundaries clearly and is able to explain them to the client as part of therapy, not as rejection.

Boundaries are integrated into the position; every test of boundaries is clinical material.

Crossing boundaries (gifts, dual relationships), rigid refusals without explanation, ‘friendship’ with the client. The client breaches the therapist’s boundaries, takes possession of them, enters their private life…

CI 49 — Translating goals into tasks

Operatively connecting goals with concrete steps. It is essential that these are the client’s goals from which tasks arise — defined together, accepted (including the cost of the goal) — rather than the therapist’s tasks for the client.

Sets broad goals; struggles to translate them into concrete tasks.

Translation of goals into tasks is systematic; the client knows what is being worked on now and why.

Tasks are adjusted through the process; distinguishes therapeutic tasks from the client’s life tasks.

Goals that are too abstract and do not guide the work, tasks that are too concrete and resemble ‘homework’, absence of tracking the tasks.

CI 50 — Treatment plan — operative implementation

Capacity to construct a concrete operative plan — goals, phases, techniques, sequence, criteria of progress, mechanisms of revision. The plan is aligned with the client’s goals — a developmental-educational, not a medical, model.

Has a treatment plan in rudimentary form; often only a list of goals without sequencing and without criteria of evaluation.

Constructs a treatment plan that includes phases, defined techniques, criteria of progress. Able to revise it in line with the process.

The treatment plan is a developmental document that links the theoretical foundation (D5) with the operative work; integrates symptomatic and structural goals, anticipates different phases of therapy, has clear criteria of progress and indicators for revising the plan.

The plan as mere administrative formality; mechanical adherence to the plan without adapting to the process; absence of a plan (‘I work with whatever comes up’); rigid clinging to the original plan even when the clinical material suggests a different direction.

CI 51 — Conducting the final phase of therapy

Capacity for the therapist to conduct the final phase of therapy with understanding of its specific tasks, themes of separation, anxieties and resistances.

Recognises the final phase as distinct, but often conducts it informally; may avoid the topic of ending or steer it toward premature termination.

Conducts the final phase systematically (separation, integration, transfer of functions); prepares the client for the ending over an appropriate period. Does not suggest termination — opens the topic of ending through questions based on signs that the working alliance has been fulfilled.

The final phase is integrated into the process from the beginning — the therapist is aware that therapy has an ending. Systematically works through 5 key tasks: (1) themes of separation; (2) integration of gains; (3) transfer of functions; (4) processing idealisation/devaluation of the therapist; (5) preparation for work without the therapist.

Avoidance of the topic of ending; premature termination without a final phase; staying in the work too long because of the therapist’s anxiety; introducing new material in the final phase to avoid ending; failure to see that the final phase is a therapeutically very significant period (separation, loss, autonomy).

DOMAIN 7 — Ethics and professional integrity in work (CI 52—57)

Understanding and applying the ethical code, recognising ethical dilemmas

INDICATOR

BASIC LEVEL (trainee)

COUNSELLOR

PSYCHOTHERAPIST

DEVELOPMENTAL RISKS / CONTRAINDICATIONS

CI 52 — Understanding the ethical code of the profession

Knowledge of the content and structure of the profession’s ethical code, with understanding of why particular provisions exist. Difference from CI 53 (assimilation): the focus here is on knowledge of the code as an external framework, while CI 53 is about the internalisation of that framework into one’s own value system.

Knows the key provisions of the code; consults the supervisor on specific questions.

Knows the code in detail and is able to apply it to concrete situations.

Understands the spirit of the code, not only the letter; able to handle situations that the code does not cover explicitly.

Lack of knowledge of the code, formal knowledge without understanding, applying only ‘the letter’.

CI 53 — Assimilation of the code into one’s own value system

Ethics as an internalised framework, not an external restriction.

Ethics is ‘rules I keep’; occasionally feels rules as an external obligation.

Ethics is part of the professional identity; does not seek rules out of a sense of control.

Ethics is part of every intervention; does not think about it specifically because it is integrated.

Ethics as external restriction, ‘ethics for others but not for me’, a difference between public and private ethics.

CI 54 — Recognising ethical dilemmas

Capacity to notice the ethical dimension of a situation while it is happening, not only afterwards.

Recognises obvious dilemmas (gift, the client’s financial problem); misses subtler ones.

Recognises subtler dilemmas (boundaries in long-term work, confidentiality with a third party).

Ethical sensitivity is constant; recognises a dilemma before it materialises.

A blind spot for one’s own ethical drifts, recognising the dilemma only afterwards, ‘normalising’ the drift.

CI 55 — Will to act ethically

Readiness not to yield to one’s own unethical impulses.

The will is good in clear situations; under pressure may slip.

The will is consistent; able to see one’s own impulses and not yield even in discomfort.

The will does not have to be specifically activated — ethical conduct is taken for granted; exceptional situations call for conscious deliberation.

Yielding under pressure (‘just this once’), rationalisation of unethical acts, avoidance of facing one’s own impulses.

CI 56 — Reflecting on ethical dilemmas

Capacity for ethical reflection in complex situations.

Under a dilemma seeks the supervisor’s help; independent reflection is uncertain.

Reflects on dilemmas independently; supervision is for confirmation and additional perspectives.

Ethical reflection is integrated into clinical thinking; able to help others in supervision with their dilemmas.

Does not notice ethically sensitive situations and dilemmas, or does not reflect on them when noticed. If pointed out to them, asks the supervisor for a concrete instruction (a ‘recipe’ for what to do) instead of developing their own ethical reflection. May not follow the instruction given and later not inform the supervisor of what they decided or did.

CI 57 — Responsible action in complex situations

The operative level of ethical work — decisions about termination, referral, confidentiality, boundaries.

In complex situations seeks the supervisor’s help before deciding.

Acts independently in standard complex situations (boundaries, dual relationships, financial questions, confidentiality); applies ethical principles deliberately; consults the supervisor on non-standard dilemmas.

Ethical conduct is part of the professional identity; independently handles even highly complex situations (suicidal risk, ethical dilemmas without a clear solution in the code, situations of referral).

Avoidance of decisions, making decisions without consultation in doubtful situations, shifting responsibility to the client.

DOMAIN 8 — Self-evaluation and continuing professional development (CI 58—65)

Reflective function on one’s own professional work and development

INDICATOR

BASIC LEVEL (trainee)

COUNSELLOR

PSYCHOTHERAPIST

DEVELOPMENTAL RISKS / CONTRAINDICATIONS

CI 58 — Propensity for self-evaluation

Active, unforced examination of one’s own work.

Self-evaluation is reactive — appears after a mistake or at the supervisor’s request.

Self-evaluation is active and regular — before and after sessions, through case consideration.

Self-evaluation is an integral part of the working mindset — automatic and unforced.

Defensiveness, self-evaluation as self-criticism (‘I did everything wrong’), absence of self-evaluation.

CI 59 — Honesty toward self and supervision

Not concealing mistakes, not presenting one’s work as better than it is.

Reveals mistakes in supervision with some resistance; tendency to ‘soften’.

Honesty is consistent; mistakes and uncertainties are openly brought.

Honesty is integrated; able to bring even subtle lapses and ethical uncertainties.

Concealing mistakes, presenting work as better, avoiding difficult topics in supervision.

CI 60 — Curiosity about one’s own development

Interest in understanding one’s own patterns, limits, and dynamics.

Curiosity arises with specific injuries (a mistake in work); otherwise less active.

Curiosity is constant; actively seeks opportunities for self-understanding.

Curiosity about oneself is part of the professional stance; understands that the therapist’s development does not end with licensing.

Defensiveness, ‘I know myself’, avoidance of one’s own blind spots, fixation on the client’s problems instead of one’s own.

CI 61 — Recognising the zone of next development

Awareness of what comes next for personal work (Vygotsky’s zone of next development applied to professional development).

The supervisor’s help is needed to articulate the zone of next development.

Articulates the zone independently; brings it to supervision as working material.

The zone of next development is differentiated across multiple levels (the client, personality structure, therapeutic method, life position).

A point of stagnation (‘there is nothing more for me to learn’), an unrealistic zone of development (overambitious or too narrow), substituting ‘what I want’ for ‘what I need’.

CI 62 — Active stance toward supervision

A proactive stance in the supervisory process: the therapist notices when supervision is needed, knows what they need a particular supervisory session for, actively prepares and brings questions and material.

Brings material that ‘arises’ from the session; questions are general.

Brings specific questions with formulated hypotheses; supervision is an exchange, not instruction.

Supervision is a chosen space; brings both the topic and the expected format of work.

Passivity in supervision, ‘what do you think’, supervision as ‘reporting’ to the supervisor.

CI 63 — Reciprocity in supervision (‘I must give in order to receive’)

The supervisee as an active co-participant, not a passive recipient.

Understands the principle of reciprocity; in practice often waits for the supervisor to ‘pull’.

Actively participates; brings their own hypotheses and offers them for discussion.

Reciprocity is constant; able to use supervision to ‘test’ their own ideas.

Passivity, ‘the supervisor will say’, avoidance of one’s own viewpoint, supervision as protection from making a mistake.

CI 64 — Continuing professional development

Sustaining learning through work, training, personal therapy, and after licensing — including reading, awareness of current research, and the capacity to critically evaluate research findings and integrate them into practice.

Active during the obligatory part of training; after completion struggles to maintain the continuity of independent professional development.

Actively seeks additional trainings and personal-development work relevant to professional development. Regularly engages with current literature.

CPD is integrated into the work routine; personal development is a professional obligation, not a luxury. Critically evaluates research findings and integrates them appropriately into practice.

Stagnation after licensing, training as a formality, professional isolation. Not engaging with current literature; mechanical incorporation of trends without critical evaluation.

CI 65 — Gradually taking over the supervisor’s functions

A parallel with the transfer of function from therapist to client (see CI 14) — the supervisee learns to become their own evaluator and reflective partner to themselves.

The supervisor’s functions are external; independent evaluation is difficult.

Gradually takes over the supervisor’s functions — reflects on their own, asks their own questions, sees their own mistakes.

The supervisor’s functions are internalised; supervision is a chosen exchange, not a developmental necessity.

A lasting dependence on the supervisor, ‘the supervisor knows better’, failure to develop autonomous clinical thinking.

DOMAIN 9 — Supplementary competencies of the professional context (CI 66—68)

Competencies that develop largely after the completion of formal training — through alumni networks, peer support, professional associations, and clinical practice

INDICATOR

BASIC LEVEL (trainee)

COUNSELLOR

PSYCHOTHERAPIST

DEVELOPMENTAL RISKS / CONTRAINDICATIONS

CI 66 — Collaboration with other professionals

Capacity for the therapist to collaborate effectively with other professionals in the service of the client — psychiatrists, physicians, social workers, educators, other psychotherapists, counsellors. Includes knowledge of service providers, constructive referral, communication with team members and (where appropriate) the family — while preserving boundaries of discretion and ethical responsibility. Develops mainly after training.

Knows the basic categories of professionals (psychiatrist, general practitioner, social worker) and clear situations for referral (combination with medication, suspicion of a serious psychiatric diagnosis); consults the supervisor before contacts with other professionals.

Independently selects whom and when to refer the client to; able to prepare the client for referral while preserving the working alliance; communicates clearly and ethically with other professionals in the service of the client.

Actively builds a professional network (psychiatrists, colleagues from other professions, alumni); understands the differences between professions and their perspectives; able to position themselves as part of a team around the client without losing therapeutic specificity.

Isolated work without awareness of other professional resources; untidy communication (revealing more than is necessary or a lack of communication where it is needed); fear of ‘meddling’ in the work of other professionals leading to non-referral of the client where they need it.

CI 67 — Risk assessment and conduct in crisis situations

Systematic capacity for the therapist to assess and respond appropriately to risks to the client and others — suicidal risk, self-harm, risk to others, acute crises. Includes conversation about specific suicidal plans, assessment of the support system, knowledge of crisis intervention protocols and referral systems. Cross-references: CI 10 (risk as an exception to non-directiveness), CI 45 (assessment in the first interview), CI 57 (responsible action in complex situations).

Recognises obvious signals of risk (verbalised suicidal thoughts, plans); consults the supervisor before and during action; follows the protocol of crisis intervention.

Independently assesses risk during the interview and during the course of treatment; able to open the topic of risk with the client without amplifying anxiety; makes clear safety contracts where indicated.

Risk assessment is integrated into clinical thinking; subtler signals (indirect, ambivalent) are recognised early; able to be a resource to others in crisis situations; integrates risk assessment with understanding of the client’s dynamics (counter-skills tied to self-harm, secondary gain of crisis).

Denial of risk signals, avoidance of the topic out of one’s own anxiety; assuming responsibility that exceeds the therapist’s role (non-directiveness in a crisis situation); isolated action without consultation and referral; mechanical assessment without understanding of the client’s inner dynamics.

CI 68 — Practice management, administration, and self-care

Capacity for the therapist to maintain practice at a professional level — keeping records of sessions, administrative aspects (scheduling, cancellations, payments, contracts), the financial and legal framework of the practice, and self-care as a systematic practice of preventing burnout. Cross-references: CI 43 (establishing the setting), CI 5 (burnout as a risk), CI 64 (CPD).

Keeps basic records of sessions; follows administrative rules of the training/centre; aware of the risk of burnout but does not treat it as a systematic practice.

Manages the practice independently (private or institutional) — records are tidy, administration efficient, financial and contractual relationship with the client is transparent; has personal mechanisms of self-care.

The practice is well-ordered and sustainable in the long term; able to recognise signs of burnout in themselves and in colleagues (alumni support); self-care is integrated into the working mindset, not reactive; able to help others in managing workload.

Untidy or non-existent records; chaotic administration (late responses, unclear contracts); lack of self-care (working without breaks, avoiding supervision, ignoring physical and emotional signals); burnout that manifests as distance from clients, loss of enthusiasm, somatic symptoms.

What this indicator is

Self-reflection is the therapist’s capacity to step back from their own work and examine what they did, why they did it, what they missed, and what their impact on the client was. This is a fundamental competency for psychodynamic work — without it, the therapist remains caught in their own blind spots. Within the OLI framework, self-reflection is a form of mentalisation applied to one’s own professional work — the capacity to recognise, name, and understand one’s own thoughts, motives, and reactions in the work. In CI 1, self-reflection is a capacity, in contrast to D8 (systematic self-evaluation), where this capacity is applied to professional development over time.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: the therapist seeks feedback, does not react defensively to criticism, brings questions to supervision. IN SPEECH: uses formulations such as ‘I’m not sure’, ‘I may have missed something’, ‘what did I bring into that session’. IN INNER PROCESS: pauses after a session and notices what was done; notices their own reactions and asks what they mean.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What in this session remained unclear, unresolved, unnoticed?’, ‘Were any interventions outside the basic therapeutic stance?’, ‘Which part of your reaction to the client did you not understand?’, ‘What would you do differently next time?’. SIGNS: defensiveness vs. openness to criticism; the quality of self-analysis in case presentation; capacity to recognise one’s own shortcomings before the supervisor names them.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: by asking open questions, providing a safe space for acknowledging shortcomings, modelling the reflective stance. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: personal therapy develops the reflective capacity in general; specific defensive mechanisms that block self-reflection (e.g. perfectionism, narcissistic sensitivity) can also be worked on. THROUGH TRAINING: practising structured case presentation, keeping a working journal, peer-supervision.

What this indicator is

Mentalisation of one’s own states is the therapist’s capacity to recognise and name what is happening within themselves — their own emotions, thoughts, impulses, bodily sensations — and to explain the causes of those states. This is a precondition for mentalising the client: without an understanding of one’s own inner world, the therapist has no instrument for recognising what is theirs and what is the client’s (countertransferential confusion).

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: during a session, pauses and recognises ‘now I am feeling X’; does not react impulsively. IN SUPERVISORY SPEECH: uses a differentiated emotional vocabulary (not just ‘I’m anxious’, but ‘I feel something between anger and sadness, I think it’s more sadness’). IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes physical sensations from emotions from thoughts; distinguishes their own from the client’s contents. Able to explain what brings them into that state — not only to recognise the emotion, but also its cause.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What exactly were you feeling at that moment?’, ‘Was that yours or the client’s feeling?’, ‘What was happening in your body while the client was speaking?’. SIGNS: richness and precision of emotional vocabulary; capacity for differentiation; insight into one’s own impulses before action; capacity to speak about one’s own states without shame or idealisation; ability to explain one’s own states and the states of another.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: questions that bring the therapist back into their own body and emotions (‘where in you was that?’); modelling precise emotional language. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: psychodynamic or psychoanalytic therapy is the main school of mentalisation; specific techniques (mindfulness, focusing) can help. THROUGH TRAINING: reading the theory of mentalisation (Fonagy, Bateman); exercises in naming emotions; keeping a journal focused on inner states.

What this indicator is

The intrapsychic level of working with countertransference is the therapist’s capacity to NOTICE that personal reactions to the client exist and that they can bring them to supervision. The difference from D4 (operative level): here it is not about using countertransference as a clinical instrument, but about the raw capacity — noticing that reactions exist and openness to processing them. Within the OLI framework this capacity is the intersection of two basic competencies: mentalisation (the capacity not only to notice the reactions but also to name them, with understanding of their origin and motives) and neutralisation (the precondition that one can notice them at all, without being affectively flooded — without neutralisation, mentalisation in that moment fails). This also includes understanding the sources of those reactions — whether they are of a transferential nature (linked to the therapist’s earlier relationships) or are spontaneous reactions to the client’s communication style which can serve as useful information about what the client typically evokes in others.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: ready to mention in supervision ‘something is going on with me with this client’; does not hide having reactions. IN SPEECH: names reactions without moralising about themselves (‘I have an impulsive wish to discharge this client — before I decide on that, I want to understand’). IN INNER PROCESS: does not use ‘professionalism’ as a shield from emotions; understands that countertransference is always present, not only with ‘difficult’ clients.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What do you feel as you tell me about this client?’, ‘Is there a client you find hard to face?’, ‘Do you have impulsive reactions that worry you?’. SIGNS: readiness to name reactions without idealisation (‘I never feel that’); distinguishing between normal human reactions and signs of problematic countertransference; openness to being unsettled or confused about one’s own feelings; orientation towards uncovering the patterns of those reactions.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: creating a safe space where acknowledging countertransference is not a problem but an instrument; conversation about countertransferential reactions without moralising. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: personal therapy is the primary field where unprocessed personal reactions are worked through; this is why personal therapy is mandatory for psychotherapists. THROUGH TRAINING: reading the literature on countertransference (Searles, Heimann, Bion); working on understanding the sources of reactions — whether they come from the therapist’s earlier relationships (transferential in nature) or are spontaneous reactions to the client’s communication style which can be useful information about what the client typically evokes in others.

What this indicator is

Affect regulation is the therapist’s capacity to manage their own emotional states in the work — to remain functional, present, and able to think even when the client’s contents evoke strong reactions. Within the OLI framework, ‘neutralisation’ is the technical term: the conversion of raw affective energy into working energy, without repression and without overflow. Developed affect regulation manifests through calm, soothing, measured, rhythmic behaviour (breathing, speech, bodily posture) which is gradually transferred to the client through the work — by their regulated presence the therapist becomes a model of regulation.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not react impulsively to provocative contents; remains physically and emotionally present; pace and tone of speech remain stable even in intense moments. Behaviour is calm, soothing, measured, rhythmic. IN SPEECH: speaks from a working position, not from reactivity. IN INNER PROCESS: able to bring escalation down within themselves before it manifests; distinguishes their own flooding (loss of regulation) from countertransferential information (a conscious signal about the client).

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What was going on with you when the client said X?’, ‘How did you return to a working position?’, ‘What helps you regulate yourself in such moments?’. SIGNS: capacity to continue the work even after difficult contents; does not request a break prematurely; does not change the topic to avoid their own reaction; has a reflective sense of their own regulation mechanisms; the quality of regulated presence is noticeable to the client.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussing concrete moments of flooding; practising regulation techniques in a safe space. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: treatment of one’s own developmental deficits in affect tolerance and mentalisation; work with one’s own anxiety and insecurity. THROUGH TRAINING: learning regulation techniques (breathing, grounding, mindfulness); understanding the theory of affective regulation (Schore, Siegel).

What this indicator is

The therapist’s capacity to understand the client from within (empathic identification) without losing differentiation (‘I am I, the client is the client’). The capacity for differentiation, which is a precondition of mature empathy, rests within the OLI framework on object wholeness (the client is experienced as an integral person, not as a polarised object) and object constancy (a stable inner representation that does not change under the pressure of affect). Without these two competencies, empathy slides toward fusion or being pulled into the client’s affect. Empathy in D1 is not ‘voluntary’ in the sense of intentional activation; rather, it is the capacity for the therapist to put themselves in someone else’s shoes and feel what the other person feels — but while keeping a certain distance. Distance is essential for two reasons: (1) protection of the client — too strong an empathy can lead to the therapist being more upset than the client (like a mother who gets more upset than the child when the child falls), which is of no use; (2) protection of the therapist — without distance, the therapist ‘burns out’ from many sad stories. In D1 we speak of empathy as a capacity of the person; in D3 of empathy as an instrument of the relationship.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: during a session can follow the client more deeply, but returns to their own position; does not remain flooded or ‘trapped’ in the client’s world after the session. IN SPEECH: distinguishes ‘I understand that you feel that way’ from ‘I feel the same way’; describes the client’s states from the inner perspective but from the position of an observer. IN INNER PROCESS: able to enter the world of the other and exit it without losing themselves; feels how the other feels, while keeping a distance that protects both the client and themselves.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How drawn into their world were you?’, ‘Were you ‘soaked’ in them after the session?’, ‘When were you losing yourself?’. SIGNS: the quality of empathic statements (specific, not generic); capacity to speak about the client with respect but without idealisation; the speed of returning to oneself after difficult sessions; absence of signs of ‘burnout’ over a longer period of work.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with examples of concrete moments of empathic identification; conversation about the limits of empathy (what is and what is not empathy); conversation about signs of being flooded and the mechanisms of ‘defence against burnout’. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: development of one’s own identity as a base for differentiation; working with one’s own tendencies toward fusion or distancing. THROUGH TRAINING: techniques of empathic regulation; theories of developmental empathy (Stern, Trevarthen).

What this indicator is

The therapist’s capacity to bear criticism, mistakes, uncertainty, and one’s own limits — without defensive reactions. In therapeutic work different kinds of frustrated needs arise that need to be tolerated: not only narcissistic injuries (criticism, failure, disturbance of self-image), but also (a) the need for safety — fear of harming the client; (b) the need for certainty and ‘cognitive closure’ — wanting to understand quickly, to find an answer quickly; (c) the need to be loved; (d) sexual needs (if the client is attractive); (e) the need for reciprocity — the therapeutic relationship is one-directional, the therapist’s needs are set aside. If these are not present in the therapist’s private life, the therapeutic relationship may become a temptation to satisfy frustrated needs in it — which then directly enters CI 7. Without tolerance for these injuries and frustrations, the therapist becomes rigid, defensive, or avoidant of challenges.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not change position when the client or supervisor criticises them; openly admits shortcomings; does not seek reassurance after difficult moments. IN SPEECH: does not over-explain themselves; does not defend themselves preemptively. IN INNER PROCESS: a shortcoming does not activate flooding shame; uncertainty is borne without a compulsive need to ‘resolve’ it; recognises their own sensitivity to particular frustrations and works on overcoming it.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What is hardest in working with this client for your sense of self?’, ‘Which criticism is hardest for you to accept?’, ‘How do you react when a client tells you that you have not helped?’, ‘Which of your needs remain unmet in the work — and how do you cope with that?’. SIGNS: readiness to attend supervision even when they have not ‘succeeded’; capacity to admit ‘I don’t know’; does not show an excessive need for praise; awareness of the various kinds of their frustrations in work (safety, certainty, being loved, reciprocity).

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: giving critical feedback in a safe space; modelling that the supervisor too has limits and shortcomings. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with narcissistic structure and sensitivity; working with the needs for safety, certainty, and reciprocity; developing a realistic image of the self (neither grandiose nor devalued); ensuring that the therapist’s needs are met outside the working context. THROUGH TRAINING: practising receiving feedback in peer groups; reflection on one’s own narcissistic injuries and frustrated needs.

What this indicator is

The therapist’s capacity to direct the work with the client toward the client’s needs, not toward their own — does not seek through the work self-affirmation, admiration, love, financial security beyond what is reasonable, professional recognition. This is a central ethical and technical competency: without it, the work becomes a service of the therapist’s needs. Within the OLI framework, this competency rests on three basic ones: neutralisation (regulation and postponement of one’s own needs in the moment of work), frustration tolerance (if it is weak, the therapist becomes preoccupied with satisfying their own — especially narcissistic — needs: ‘how will I come across’), and ambivalence tolerance (the capacity to bear that the therapeutic relationship is one-directional — the therapist gives but sets their own needs aside). A particularly subtle form of lack of this competency is projection of one’s own need into the client’s ‘need’ — e.g. the rescuer complex: the therapist has a need to rescue → the client begins to ‘need’ to be rescued. As these are personal competencies, the general tendency to place one’s own needs above those of others (or vice versa) exists as a personality trait; in psychotherapeutic work, it is simply manifested in the professional setting.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: chooses interventions according to what the client needs, not according to what makes them a ‘good therapist’; does not cling to successful clients; does not reject difficult ones. IN SUPERVISORY SPEECH: mentions the client more often than themselves; if they mention themselves, it is in the service of understanding the client. IN INNER PROCESS: knows the difference between ‘what the client needs’, ‘what I want the client to do’, and ‘what I want the client to need’ — e.g. if I have a need to rescue, it is easy for me to ascribe to the client a ‘need’ for a rescuer.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What does this client mean to you?’, ‘What is your need in working with them?’, ‘Do you talk about them in your private life?’, ‘Which of your needs might you be projecting as the client’s?’. SIGNS: quality of decisions in complex situations (e.g. whether they refer the client elsewhere when it is not their level); clarity of boundaries between professional and private; capacity to recognise their own narcissistic investment in the client; ability to recognise and name the projection of their own needs.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: posing questions about the therapist’s personal investments in the client; supervisory conversation about cases where ‘using’ the client is visible; analysis of projections (‘rescuer complex’, need for admiration, need to be loved). THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own narcissistic needs; developing alternative sources of self-affirmation outside the working relationship. THROUGH TRAINING: ethical training; reading on boundaries in psychotherapeutic work.

What this indicator is

Inner alignment with ethical principles as a character trait — not as the application of a prescribed code (that is in D7), but as a trait that exists independently of the professional context. The person has consistent values and does not act against their convictions even when it would be easy or advantageous. Within the OLI framework, personal ethics is not only an understanding of ethical principles but also rests on the will (the engine of the psyche) — the capacity to maintain values under pressure, not to yield to opportunistic impulses even when doing so would be easy or advantageous.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: consistency between what they say and what they do; does not change position with the situation; does not make ‘exceptions for themselves’. IN SPEECH: does not moralise but has clear values that show in how they approach decisions. IN INNER PROCESS: feels inner resistance when approaching an unethical decision; not an easy victim of rationalisation.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What are your fundamental values in the work?’, ‘If this were to happen, what would you do?’, ‘Is there something you might be asked that you would refuse?’. SIGNS: consistency between professional and private behaviour (broadly); ability to articulate one’s values and their sources; resistance to manipulation and to pressures from the environment.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussion of ethical dilemmas in which values conflict (e.g. when loyalty to the client conflicts with loyalty to the client’s family). THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding one’s own value system, its sources and vulnerabilities; working with internal conflicts of values. THROUGH TRAINING: philosophical and ethical literature; conversations with colleagues about value dilemmas; participation in ethical discussions of professional associations.

What this indicator is

Communication style is the basic pattern of how a person communicates with others — how generally aggressive, passive-aggressive, avoidant, submissive, or dominant their style is; how much they listen to the other or ‘hold the floor’; how prone they are to stubbornness or uncritical attitudes; the capacity to recognise their own communication style and its impact on other people and consequences for the relationship. Communication style is the psychotherapist’s primary instrument — before techniques are learned, the therapist communicates in some basic style of their own. The capacity to notice this style and understand its impact rests, within the OLI framework, on mentalisation in interaction (the capacity for the therapist to be in contact with another and at the same time observe what is happening in that contact) and frustration tolerance (if their own need blinds them, they can neither postpone nor mentalise it). This is best seen in group work, group psychotherapy, and relationships in the training group, where the typical patterns of interaction with various people come to the fore.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in group situations one can see how the person approaches others — whether they listen or mostly speak, whether they dominate or withdraw, whether they confront or avoid conflicts, how much they respect the boundaries of others in communication. IN SPEECH: a recognisable pattern is evident (speaks too quickly, interrupts, lectures, gets into details, avoids a direct answer, uses humour to defuse tension). IN INNER PROCESS: has awareness of their own style — how others experience them, where their style is productive and where counterproductive in the work.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How would you describe your communication style in a group?’, ‘What do others often say about your way of communicating?’, ‘When does your style help the client, when does it hinder?’, ‘What do you notice about your style under pressure?’. SIGNS: quality of self-insight about the style; readiness to hear feedback about the style without defensiveness; development of flexibility of style over time; ability to recognise the effect of one’s style on different clients.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: feedback about the therapist’s communication style in supervision (how they present a case, whether they listen to questions, whether they dominate or withdraw). THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with the character structure that shapes the style (rigidity, submissiveness, dominance); developing alternative communicative patterns. THROUGH TRAINING: group psychotherapy (one’s own, as a client) is one of the strongest experiences for insight into one’s own communication style; training groups with feedback; communication exercises with video recording; work in peer-supervision groups.

What this indicator is

Non-directiveness is the therapeutic stance in which the therapist does not impose solutions, does not direct the client where to go, but follows the client’s process. It is not passivity or absence of structure — it is an active position in which the therapist consciously does not assume the role of an authority who ‘knows the direction’. In OLI psychodynamic work, non-directiveness allows the client to discover their own inner strengths and blocks. Essentially, non-directiveness refers to not assuming responsibility for the client’s life choices — advising and taking over another person’s decisions is disrespect for that person’s autonomy and dangerous for the therapeutic process, since the therapist cannot really know which decision is good for someone else (what would be a good decision for them is not necessarily good for the client because they are not the same). Most complaints against therapists arise precisely from the formulation ‘they led me to a decision, and it turned out badly for me’. Exceptions to non-directiveness are situations dangerous to life (suicidal and homicidal risk). The abstinence rule from psychoanalysis serves the purpose of agreeing that the client does not make important life decisions during therapy until they are analysed.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: the therapist does not give advice, does not recommend specific decisions (e.g. ‘you should break up’), does not evaluate the client’s choices. Asks open questions, reflects, paraphrases, explores with the client the pros and cons of various choices so that the client makes a conscious and more mature decision. IN SPEECH: uses formulations such as ‘how do you see it’, ‘what is going through your mind’, ‘what alternatives do you see, the pros and cons of those choices, the conflicting feelings around the choice’ instead of ‘I think you should’ or (covertly behind a question) ‘don’t you think it would be good if…’. IN INNER PROCESS: recognises their own impulse to direct and chooses not to act on it; distinguishes structuring the session (legitimate) from directive steering of the client’s life (problematic). Structuring the session means organising the working space and time, focusing on a topic, leading the process of inquiry — this is not the same as telling the client what to do in life.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Did you at some moment tell the client what to do? What pulled you to do that?’, ‘How do you react when the client asks for advice?’. SIGNS: the language of interventions (opening vs. directing); ability to bear the client’s anxiety at the absence of ‘direction’; the difference between non-directiveness and passivity — instead of passivity, the therapist actively works on exploring the ambivalence around a decision (alternatives, pros and cons, conflicting feelings).

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: detailed analysis of interventions in the session presentation, recognising hidden directing statements (‘isn’t it better that…’). THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own need for control, anxiety about the unknown, the ‘rescuer’ fantasy. THROUGH TRAINING: practising open questions in peer groups; reading psychoanalytic literature on technique (Greenson, Etchegoyen); analysing one’s own interventions from transcripts.

What this indicator is

The therapist’s capacity not to evaluate the client’s behaviour, choices, and values — neither explicitly (verbally) nor implicitly (non-verbally, through reaction). Value neutrality does not mean that the therapist has no values, but that they do not impose them. VALUE NEUTRALITY is to be distinguished from THERAPEUTIC PASSIVITY: the therapist is ACTIVE yet NEUTRAL — does not take a value position, but reacts, analyses, asks for clarification. Not reacting to a significant topic can be interpreted by the client as approval or condemnation. When the therapist notices that the client experiences silence as implicit approval or rejection, they open the topic with a reflective question (‘what were you feeling as you were telling me that? What reaction of mine were you expecting?’).

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not show shock at unusual contents (sexual, aggressive, transgressive); does not criticise the client even when they do something personally foreign to the therapist; does not praise for ‘good behaviour’. IN SPEECH: avoids words that carry value judgement (‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘should’); the focus is on understanding, not evaluation. IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes their own reaction (value-laden) from a therapeutic intervention; recognises also when they are ‘glossing over’ a sensitive topic — that too is a form of judgement.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What does it mean to you personally that the client is doing this? Is it hard for you not to judge it?’, ‘Would you react differently with a client whose values match yours?’, ‘Did you skip something or gloss over something — and why?’. SIGNS: the quality of work with clients whose values clash with the therapist’s; absence of hidden signals of approval/disapproval; ability to discuss one’s own values with the supervisor without bringing them into the work; readiness to enter sensitive topics without avoidance.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: identifying concrete moments of evaluation (verbal or non-verbal); recognising avoidance of sensitive topics; discussing values that block the therapist’s neutrality. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding one’s own value system and its sources; working with rigid or idealised values. THROUGH TRAINING: working with diverse clients in training (culturally, class-wise, value-wise different); ethical training on professional neutrality.

What this indicator is

The stance of not-knowing is OPENNESS TO A JOINT SEARCH FOR TRUTH with the client — the opposite of the stance of ‘the expert who knows’, who, on the basis of title, knowledge, and expertise, ‘should know’ and so pretends to know, plays at being ‘clever’. What it IS NOT: it is not a lack of knowledge, false modesty, or abandonment of clinical thinking. A Bionian connection (‘without memory, without desire’) with an OLI variant — the therapist has both memory and clinical formulation, but holds them in such a way that they do not close off the client’s novelty. DIFFERENCE FROM DEFENSIVE AVOIDANCE: defensive avoidance is a question instead of a formulation, reflection as defence, not offering interpretation out of fear. The MOTIVATION distinguishes a genuine stance of not-knowing (curiosity) from defensive avoidance (fear). How the client experiences it: space (a true stance of not-knowing) vs. absence of the therapist (defensive).

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: asks questions instead of giving conclusions; does not force the ‘right’ interpretation; asks the client about their understanding before offering their own. IN SPEECH: uses formulations such as ‘perhaps’, ‘what do you think about that’, ‘I’m not sure but it occurs to me’; does not begin sentences with ‘it is obvious that…’. IN INNER PROCESS: feels real curiosity about the client (not formal); understands that every client brings something the therapist cannot know in advance; at the same time, does not use not-knowing as an excuse not to offer their own clinical idea as a hypothesis.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What did you not understand about this client?’, ‘Where did you have a tendency to immediately ‘know’?’, ‘When were you taking a stance of not-knowing and when of pseudo-not-knowing?’, ‘Do you have a hypothesis about this client that you did not voice out of defence?’. SIGNS: the quality of questions in the session presentation; ability to articulate what they do not understand about the client; resistance to premature formulations; at the same time, ability to offer hypotheses for exploration (not as assertions).

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: practising the formulation of what we do not know about the client; distinguishing dangerous ‘I know’ moments in the presentation from defensive ‘I don’t know’; working on formulating hypotheses as proposals for exploration. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with the need to always be ‘clever’; understanding the narcissistic investment in knowledge; working with defensive avoidance of taking a position. THROUGH TRAINING: reading Bion’s literature (‘without memory and desire’); the exercise ‘what do I still not know’ before each session.

What this indicator is

Empathy cultivated as a therapeutic mindset — compassion without being flooded by the client’s contents, without losing differentiation. ‘Mature’ means it is not naive (‘I’m completely in your shoes’) nor cold (‘I understand theoretically’); it is present and at the same time differentiated. It differs from D1 empathy (as a personality trait) and D3 empathy (as a manifestation in the relationship) in that in D2 it is a cultivated position — the therapeutic stance of mature empathy.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not take on the client’s feelings as their own, but feels them sufficiently to understand them; the therapist’s tempo and tone reflect the client’s state (a quiet tempo when the client speaks of sadness) but with their own rhythm preserved. IN SPEECH: empathic formulations are precise, not clichéd (‘I understand how hard that is’ is less useful than ‘it seems to me you are feeling both sadness and guilt at the same time’). IN INNER PROCESS: empathy is voluntarily activated; the therapist knows when to enter more deeply and when to keep distance.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘When were you in an empathic position and when did you ‘step out of it’?’, ‘What happened to you when the client was speaking about the most difficult topic?’. SIGNS: the quality of specific empathic statements in the presentation; the difference between naive and mature empathy; ability also to use confrontation as a form of deeper empathy.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussion of moments of being flooded and of coldness; practising precise empathic statements. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding one’s own tendencies toward identification or distance. THROUGH TRAINING: reading the theory of mature empathy (Kohut, Stern); exercises in naming the client’s emotions with precision.

What this indicator is

Transfer of function is the therapeutic stance through which the therapist consciously works ON enabling the client to gradually take over functions that the therapist has been performing for them — reflection, regulation, mentalisation, decision-making. A parallel with the OLI aim of the client’s autonomy and Vygotsky’s ‘zone of next development’. Theoretically anchored in the Stern–Fonagy concept of ‘transfer of functions’ and Stern’s ‘moments of meeting’ — through the relationship the therapist transfers procedural capacities to the client. Without this stance, therapy becomes a state of dependency, not a developmental process. It is important to understand the dual mechanism of transfer: (1) declarative — through verbal interventions, interpretations, education; (2) procedural — through the relationship itself and ‘moments of meeting’, through the experience of regulated presence and a mentalising other. (Discussed in more detail in CI 31 and CI 41.)

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: chooses interventions that build the client’s capacities (instead of those that solve current problems); asks the client ‘what do you think’ before offering an interpretation themselves; gradually withdraws direct help when they see the client can do it on their own. IN SPEECH: uses formulations such as ‘what would you say to yourself in that moment’, ‘how would you understand this’. IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes ‘solving for the client’ from ‘helping the client to learn to solve’; feels success when the client arrives at insight on their own; aware that transfer of function also goes through the experience of the relationship, not only through words.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Did you solve for the client? What could you do differently?’, ‘Can the client now do on their own what they previously asked of you?’, ‘How is the client changing through your presence, not only through words?’. SIGNS: documented progress of the client’s independent thinking across sessions; ability to ‘step back’ before the client’s capacity; understanding of the difference between support and taking over; awareness of procedural transfer of function (not only verbal).

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: concrete analysis of interventions — which build, which solve for the client; setting ‘transfer of function’ as a working goal. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with the therapist’s own need to be a ‘rescuer’; developing alternative sources of self-affirmation outside the work. THROUGH TRAINING: reading literature on the developmental zone of next development (Vygotsky, scaffolding); reading Stern and Fonagy on ‘transfer of functions’ and ‘moments of meeting’; peer-group discussion of cases of dependency dynamics.

What this indicator is

The therapist’s capacity to quickly establish friendly, accepting contact with the client in the first minutes of the encounter. This differs from social communicativeness — establishing contact in psychotherapeutic work requires the simultaneous presence of openness and a professional structure. Contact is the precondition for everything that follows.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: gaze, body posture, tone of voice convey openness and presence. There are no signs of distance (stiffness, formality) nor of excessive approach (compulsive warmth, friendliness). IN SPEECH: a balance between structure (setting the frame) and openness. IN INNER PROCESS: feels genuine interest in the client as a person, not only as a ‘case’.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How did you begin the first encounter? What did you feel in the first few minutes?’, ‘With which clients is it hard for you to establish contact?’. SIGNS: the quality of the first 10 minutes of a session; the ability to work with resistance at the first encounter; the differences in work with various types of clients.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: detailed analysis of first interviews; identifying patterns that block contact. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own social anxieties; understanding one’s own patterns in establishing relationships. THROUGH TRAINING: role-play in peer groups; conducting first interviews under direct supervision.

What this indicator is

Empathy as it manifests in actual interaction with the client — the client experiences the therapist as present, not as a technician who is ‘applying empathy’. Differs from D1 (empathy as a personality trait) and D2 (empathy as a cultivated position) in that in D3 the focus is on MANIFESTATION — how the client feels they are understood.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: the therapist’s body, tone, tempo change in line with the client’s emotional state; moments of silence respect the client’s process. IN SPEECH: precise empathic statements that ‘land’ for the client (‘I see it is not only anger, but sadness underneath it as well’). IN THE CLIENT’S EXPERIENCE: the client feels they are experienced, not only understood at the level of information.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How did the client behave when you offered an empathic statement? Did they feel that you understood them?’, ‘What were the moments of empathic miss?’. SIGNS: the quality of the client’s reactions to empathic statements; the ability to recognise empathic misses and to repair them.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: analysis of specific moments of empathy and of misses; practising the precision of empathic statements. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: development of one’s own emotional differentiation. THROUGH TRAINING: reading Kohut’s work on empathy; exercises with video recordings.

What this indicator is

The therapist’s capacity to maintain the same basic position (value-neutral, empathic, professional) across the client’s varying emotional states. The client should have the reliable experience: ‘This therapist is the same when I am sad, when I am angry, when I am quiet, and when I provoke.’ Consistency is the psychological container in which the client can express different states.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not significantly change the working style between sessions; does not react drastically differently to the client’s anger vs. sadness vs. calm. IN SPEECH: tone, tempo, formulations are recognisable as ‘the same therapist’. IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes a change of WORKING STYLE (legitimate — different intervention at different moments) from a change of BASIC POSITION (problematic — the therapist becomes ‘another person’ under pressure).

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Were you the same across different sessions?’, ‘In which moments did you ‘jump out’ of your usual position?’. SIGNS: the quality of work in complex client emotions; resistance to ‘bending’ under the client’s pressure; ability to return to a stable position after a breach of stability.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: recognising patterns of inconsistency; working with specific clients who provoke loss of consistency. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding one’s own patterns of changing in relationships (e.g. submissiveness with authoritative clients). THROUGH TRAINING: long-term supervisory processing of cases for insight into patterns.

What this indicator is

The therapist’s capacity not to enter a defensive position when the client criticises, gets angry, or applies pressure. Defensiveness manifests in several ways: justification (‘I didn’t mean that’), counterattack (‘you misunderstood me’), withdrawal (‘all right, all right’), shifting (‘isn’t that your pattern?’). A non-defensive stance opens space for the client’s reaction to be explored as therapeutic material — what touches the client there, what they expect, how they cope with disappointment or anger.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not bodily close off, does not increase distance when the client criticises. IN SPEECH: uses opening formulations (‘tell me more about that’, ‘what hurt you there’) instead of defensive ones. IN INNER PROCESS: recognises their own impulse to defend, but chooses not to; understands that the client’s criticism is an instrument for the work, not a threat.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What did you feel when the client criticised you?’, ‘Did you start to defend yourself?’, ‘What in you reacted to their anger?’. SIGNS: ability to remain open at moments of the client’s criticism; the quality of interventions in such moments; absence of counterattack.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: detailed work on concrete moments of criticism and the therapist’s reactions; modelling of a non-defensive stance by the supervisor. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own narcissistic sensitivity; developing the capacity to receive criticism without a collapse of self-confidence. THROUGH TRAINING: exercises in receiving critical statements in peer groups.

What this indicator is

The therapist’s capacity, through their regulated presence, to serve as an ‘external regulator’ for the client’s dysregulation, while simultaneously maintaining their own regulation. The aim is not to ‘calm’ the client (which often means suppressing their affect), but to be sufficiently regulated and present that the client can come into contact with their difficult emotions, knowing that the therapist is there and does not collapse with them. This is essentially the mechanism of what Bion called ‘containing’.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: during the client’s intense moments — the therapist does not drastically change their bodily posture, does not speed up, does not lean forward with ‘solutions’. IN SPEECH: tempo and tone remain regulated; interventions are not reactive. IN INNER PROCESS: feels the client’s affect but does not become flooded; senses their role as the ‘anchor’ for the client.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How did you regulate yourself in that intense moment?’, ‘Did you try to ‘calm’ the client? What was that for them?’, ‘Did the client feel that you were regulated, or that you were also worried?’. SIGNS: the quality of interventions at moments of high client affect; the difference between containing and pre-emptive interventions for soothing; ability of the client to come with intense affects and to express them.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete moments of affective intensity in the session presentation. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: developing one’s own affect tolerance through therapy and mindfulness; working with one’s own impulse to ‘calm’ another person. THROUGH TRAINING: reading Bion’s literature on containing; training in techniques of affective regulation.

What this indicator is

The therapist’s capacity not to treat tensions in the relationship as a problem to be removed, but as material to be explored. Tensions in the therapeutic relationship — moments where the client withdraws, gets angry, feels misunderstood, or where the therapist feels distanced or irritated — are often the richest source of insight into the client’s patterns. The aim is to open these moments as a working topic, not to ‘smooth them over’ quickly in order to preserve a sense of harmony.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not change the topic to remove the tension; offers it as a working topic. IN SPEECH: uses formulations such as ‘I notice something has changed between us in the last few minutes’ or ‘it seems to me that something I said bothered you’. IN INNER PROCESS: recognises their own impulse to ‘fix’ the atmosphere and chooses not to act on it.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Were there moments of tension? What did you do?’, ‘Did you skip something out of a wish to restore harmony?’. SIGNS: tensions mentioned in the session presentation; the quality of interventions that open tension.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete examples of tension in the session presentation. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own anxiety about conflict; understanding one’s own patterns of avoidance. THROUGH TRAINING: reading literature on ruptures and reparation in the therapeutic relationship (Safran, Muran).

What this indicator is

The therapist’s capacity to recognise how cultural, class, generational, gender, regional, and other differences between themselves and the client affect the dynamics of the work. This is not about ‘political correctness’ or a particular cultural competence for specific groups, but a general awareness that the therapist is not a neutral reference — they have their own cultural, class, and gender position which shapes their assumptions about the client. Diversity encompasses a broader spectrum than cultural differences in the narrow sense — it includes class and educational differences, generational differences, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, language, disability, neurodivergence, immigration status, power imbalances (therapist–client as part of the social order). Sensitivity does not mean explicitly thematising every difference, but awareness that it exists and reflexivity about one’s own position.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not assume the client’s experiences on the basis of their own cultural frames. IN SPEECH: asks questions that explore the client’s context instead of assuming. IN INNER PROCESS: has awareness of their own cultural filters.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How do you and the client differ in cultural/class/generational position? How does that affect the work?’, ‘What do you assume about the client based on your own context?’. SIGNS: mentions of cultural factors in case presentation; ability to recognise one’s own prejudices.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussing cultural aspects of the case. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding one’s own cultural and class position and its filters. THROUGH TRAINING: reading literature on cultural competence in psychotherapy; working with diverse clients in training.

What this indicator is

Foundational techniques are the basic skills of presence in therapeutic conversation — reflection (returning the client’s words or emotions back to them), paraphrasing (reformulation in a concise form), drawing the point (summarising the essence of the client’s account). These techniques work not through ‘wise’ interpretations but through the client’s sense of being heard, understood, and that someone is following their train of thought.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: an even rhythm of interventions, neither too frequent nor absent. IN SPEECH: concise formulations that reach the centre of what the client is saying; not mechanical repetition but meaningful condensation. IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes when reflection is needed, when paraphrase, when drawing the point — chooses the intervention according to the need of the moment.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Give me an example of your reflection from the session — how would you say it differently?’, ‘Did you somewhere mechanically repeat the client’s words?’. SIGNS: the quality of specific interventions in the session presentation; the difference between mechanical and meaningful application; ability to use silence when that is the better intervention.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: detailed work with the session transcript and analysis of each intervention. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: developing one’s own capacity to listen without the impulse to react immediately. THROUGH TRAINING: exercises in peer groups; reading classical psychoanalytic technique (Greenson, Etchegoyen); working with video recordings.

What this indicator is

Resistance in psychodynamic work is everything in the client’s functioning that opposes the process of insight and change. This is not about the client’s ‘disobedience’ or ‘bad will’ — resistance is the conscious or unconscious protection of psychic organisation from the pain that would accompany insight. The technique of working with resistance includes: recognition (resistance manifests through lateness, silences, change of topic, intellectualisation, idealisation of the therapist, etc.), naming (the therapist offers it to the client as a working topic), analysis (why precisely this resistance, what it serves, what it protects).

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not react with frustration when the client is ‘not progressing’; does not force a topic the client resists. IN SPEECH: able to name resistance (‘I notice that whenever we come to this topic, you change the subject’). IN INNER PROCESS: understands resistance as working material, not as an obstacle.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Where in this session was the resistance?’, ‘How did you react to it?’, ‘What does the resistance protect for this client?’. SIGNS: recognition of various forms of resistance in the session presentation; the quality of interventions with resistance; understanding the function of resistance.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: detailed analysis of moments of resistance in the session presentation. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding one’s own resistances in therapy as supervisee or as client. THROUGH TRAINING: reading psychoanalytic literature on resistance (Freud, Greenson, the author’s ‘Working with Resistance in OLI IPP’).

What this indicator is

Transference is the displacement of the client’s emotional patterns from earlier significant relationships (most often parental) onto the therapist. Transference may be positive (idealisation, love, admiration) or negative (anger, suspicion, devaluation), eroticised, aggressive, dependent. Working with transference in the psychodynamic framework means that these contents are not treated as an ‘obstacle’ nor as ‘real emotion’ — but as a manifestation of unconscious patterns that need to be understood and worked through.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not reject transference as a ‘wrong’ reaction, does not gratify positive transference, does not react defensively to the negative one. IN SPEECH: able to open transference as a topic (‘what you are now describing about how you feel toward me — perhaps it points us toward something from your earlier experience’). IN INNER PROCESS: recognises transference and distinguishes it from ‘the real relationship’.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What is the transference in this case?’, ‘What do you think the client sees in you?’, ‘How is it for you in that — and what does it evoke as countertransference?’. SIGNS: recognition of transferential manifestations in the presentation; the quality of interventions with transference.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: detailed analysis of transferential manifestations; discussion of erotic and aggressive transferences. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own relationship patterns that manifest as countertransference. THROUGH TRAINING: reading psychoanalytic literature on transference; the author’s ‘Working with Resistance and Transference in OLI IPP’ with a planned supplement on transference in transactional analysis.

What this indicator is

The operative level of working with countertransference is the developmental upgrade of D1 CI 3 (intrapsychic capacity). Here it is about using personal reactions as clinical material — as a source of hypotheses about the client and a basis for interventions. The key distinction: (a) PERSONAL/NEUROTIC countertransference — the therapist’s own transference toward the client (the client is the occasion, not the cause); worked through in personal therapy and supervision, NOT used as clinical material about the client. (b) SPONTANEOUS/COMPLEMENTARY countertransference — a realistic reaction to the client’s communication style (the client is the cause, not the occasion); IS USED as a precious clinical instrument. Without this distinction the therapist either pathologises themselves (attributing everything to personal countertransference) or the client (interpreting everything as spontaneous).

How it manifests

SIGNS OF PERSONAL/NEUROTIC countertransference: (1) reaction does not match the ‘weight’ of the client’s material (being flooded, anxious, unsettled by content that objectively does not read as dangerous); (2) the same kind of reaction appears with several clients of similar profile; (3) intensity beyond the context of the session; (4) it repeats in different professional relationships. SIGNS OF SPONTANEOUS/COMPLEMENTARY: (1) the therapist feels precisely what the client refuses in themselves (the feeling the client dissociates); (2) what the client says others feel in contact with them; (3) taking a complementary position (e.g. solicitude toward the infantilised, criticism toward the masochistic); (4) recognisability in Bion’s concept of reverie — the therapist ‘dreams’ what the client cannot think.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS THAT DISTINGUISH THE SOURCE OF THE REACTION: ‘Is your reaction something you have with other clients too, or is it specific to this one?’ (personal vs spontaneous); ‘What does your reaction tell you about how the client functions in their relationships?’ (spontaneous as information); ‘Is this material for your personal work or for interpretation in the work with the client?’ (operative decision). SIGNS: the quality of countertransferential interventions; ability to distinguish their own from the client’s contents; not being burdened by their own material in work with more difficult clients.

How it develops

THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: developing the ability to distinguish one’s own reactions from projections of the client — a precondition for any operative use of countertransference. THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete countertransferential moments; modelling the use of countertransference as an instrument; developing questions that distinguish the source. CENTRAL RISK: confusing personal and spontaneous countertransference.

What this indicator is

Synthesis is a continuous analytical process in which the therapist connects the client’s individual patterns, symptoms, and choices into a coherent system of counter-skills — dysfunctional beliefs and patterns of behaviour that protect the client from pain but keep them in a system that no longer serves development. It includes recognition of secondary gain (what the client gains from the symptom) and ’emotional accounting’ (how the client internally justifies the existence of the patterns).

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in case presentation a systemic insight is visible, not only a description of individual symptoms. IN SPEECH: able to present the pattern to the client in an appropriate form and at the right moment. IN INNER PROCESS: continually builds a ‘working hypothesis’ about the client’s system of counter-skills.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What are the main counter-skills of this client?’, ‘What is the secondary gain from this symptom?’, ‘How has the system changed over time?’. SIGNS: coherence of the case presentation; ability to articulate the client’s ‘system’ rather than only the symptoms.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: continuous work on synthesising the client’s system. THROUGH TRAINING: reading the literature on counter-skills in OLI IPP; working with case studies.

What this indicator is

OLI-specific techniques are a set of interventions developed for systematic work on each of the 8 basic emotional competencies. They differ from general psychodynamic techniques in having an explicit developmental map — the therapist knows in which competency the client has a deficit, which precedes which in development, and which techniques work on which competency. The central principle is the ‘zone of next development’ (Vygotsky) applied to the client: the work is not on a competency too far away from the client’s current level, nor on one already developed, but on the one that is the ‘next threshold’ — accessible with the therapist’s support. This requires precise clinical assessment of where the client is on the developmental map of the 8 competencies.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in work with the client recognises the deficient competency and chooses interventions targeted precisely at it. IN SPEECH: able to explain to the client what is being done and why (‘we are now working on you being able to recognise your states, because once you can do that, the rest becomes possible’). IN INNER PROCESS: has a clear map of ‘where the client is’ and ‘what comes next’ in the development of competencies.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Which competency is this client deficient in?’, ‘What is the zone of next development for them — what is accessible with your support?’, ‘What concrete techniques are you using for that competency?’. SIGNS: clarity of clinical assessment; the difference between mechanical ‘work on a competency’ and developmentally grounded work; awareness of the sequence of competencies (e.g. neutralisation precedes mentalisation).

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: detailed mapping of the client’s deficit across the 8 competencies; working with concrete techniques for each. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: the therapist’s own development of all 8 competencies — one cannot work effectively on what the therapist has not developed themselves. THROUGH TRAINING: the book ‘Development of Basic Emotional Competencies in OLI IPP’ (Jovanović, 2025) as the primary source; OLI seminars and workshops on specific techniques.

What this indicator is

Working with dreams and free association is the classical psychoanalytic technique for accessing the unconscious. Dreams are not stand-alone messages to be ‘decoded’ according to a fixed dictionary — they are working material illuminated through the client’s associations. The technique includes attentive listening to the dream without rushed interpretation, opening the associative process, connecting with the current dynamics of the work and the client’s life.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: when the client brings a dream, does not ignore it nor force interpretation; opens space for associations. IN SPEECH: uses opening formulations (‘what comes to mind with this part of the dream?’). IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes dreams that are working material from dreams that serve as resistance (e.g. bringing an ‘interesting dream’ to avoid the current topic).

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How did you enter into the work with the dream?’, ‘Did you open associations or interpret immediately?’. SIGNS: the quality of work with the dream in the session presentation; the ability to use the dream as part of the dynamics, not as isolated content.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: detailed work with dreams in case presentation. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own dreams in one’s own therapy. THROUGH TRAINING: reading Freud’s ‘The Interpretation of Dreams’, contemporary psychoanalytic literature on dreams.

What this indicator is

A meta-competency that links the toolset (D4) with theory (D5) — the ability to justify the choice of technique theoretically and contextually, with understanding of the OLI taxonomy of psychotherapeutic goals. Without this competency, the work becomes ‘cooking by recipe’; with it, every intervention has a reason. The OLI taxonomy of goals (detailed in D5 and D6 — treatment plan) gives the structure: which are symptomatic goals, which are structural, what is done in which phase of therapy, what precedes what. The choice of technique at a given moment answers the question: which current goal am I working on now and which technique best serves that goal?

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: chooses the technique consciously, not automatically. IN SUPERVISORY SPEECH: ‘I chose reflection here because I wanted the client to remain in their experience, rather than analyse; that is in the service of working on mentalisation’. IN INNER PROCESS: has a theoretical framework that guides the choice of techniques and a clear mapping of where the client is in the OLI taxonomy of goals.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Why did you choose this intervention rather than another?’, ‘How would you justify the choice of technique theoretically?’, ‘Which goal from your treatment plan does this intervention address?’. SIGNS: ability to articulate the theoretical justification of the choice; the difference between mechanical application and clinical thinking; explicit linking of the intervention with the phase and goal of work.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: ongoing analysis of ‘why precisely this technique now’; insight into the OLI taxonomy of goals and its application to concrete cases. THROUGH TRAINING: integrative casuistry; writing case studies with explicit justification of interventions; working with the OLI map of psychotherapeutic goals.

What this indicator is

The two levels of work are the central methodological distinction of OLI IPP. The level of content is what the client speaks ABOUT — their life, problems, symptoms, relationships, the past. The level of process is HOW the client speaks and what is happening in the therapeutic relationship WHILE they speak — their tone, silences, bodily posture, transferential reactions, the way they build the relationship with the therapist. The level of process often contains the most important information because it shows the client’s living patterns in action, not only in description. Working on the level of process means that the therapist follows and thematises what is happening WHILE it is happening — e.g. ‘I notice that every time we come to this topic, you smile and change the subject — how do you understand that?’. Without conscious use of the two levels, therapy often reduces to a conversation about life problems — which is a conversation, not psychotherapy.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: during the session it is visible that the therapist does not react only to content — occasionally thematises the process (‘you’ve just asked me something different from how you usually ask’, ‘I notice you sigh before you answer’). IN SPEECH: uses formulations that point to the process (‘what is happening between us now’, ‘how is what you are saying — affecting you while you say it’). IN INNER PROCESS: simultaneously follows what the client is saying and what is happening in the relationship — as two channels both carrying information.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What in this session was on the level of content, and what on the level of process?’, ‘Where did you move from one level to the other — and was that therapeutically productive?’, ‘What process signals were there — and how did you use them?’. SIGNS: in the session presentation work with both levels is visible; ability to articulate what is process and what is content; the difference between conversation about problems and psychotherapy.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete moments from the presentation — where the ‘process’ was, what the therapist did, what they could have done differently. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: developing one’s own ability to be aware of process in their own therapy as a client. THROUGH TRAINING: the book ‘Development of Basic Emotional Competencies in OLI IPP’ (Jovanović, 2025) — chapter on the two levels of work; reading literature on process work (Yalom, Stern); video analysis of sessions.

What this indicator is

The distinction between declarative and procedural learning is fundamental for contemporary psychodynamic practice. Declarative knowledge is what can be verbalised — insights, interpretations, explanations, self-awareness. Procedural knowledge is ‘know-how’ — how the person behaves, regulates emotions, builds relationships; this knowledge is learned through experience, not through words. Stern, in BCPSG (Boston Change Process Study Group), developed the concept of ‘moments of meeting’ — brief but intensely emotionally relevant moments in the therapeutic relationship that change the client’s procedural organisation (Lyons-Ruth, Sander, Beebe, and others). The clinical implication: the therapist changes the client in two ways — through the word (declaratively: interpretation, education, explanation) and through the relationship (procedurally: how they react, how they regulate, how they are present). Operative application means that the therapist consciously uses both levels and chooses when each is primary.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not reduce therapy only to conversation — also builds emotional exchanges that are new for the client. IN SPEECH: able to recognise when interpretation is needed and when the relational moment itself (‘right now it is not important for me to explain to you — what is important is that the two of us survive this together’). IN INNER PROCESS: has a dual working hypothesis — what the client needs declaratively (insight, knowledge) and procedurally (new experience).

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘In this session — what was the client learning through your words, and what through your presence?’, ‘Did you have a ‘moment of meeting’ with the client?’, ‘What is the procedural goal of work with this client — what new experience do they need to have?’. SIGNS: in the presentation awareness of both channels is visible; ability to recognise and name procedural moments; the difference between mechanical interpretation and relational work.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: detailed work with ‘moments of meeting’ in the presentation; working on the distinction between when declarative and when procedural is relevant. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: the therapist’s own experience of procedural change in their own therapy. THROUGH TRAINING: Stern, ‘The Present Moment in Psychotherapy and Everyday Life’; BCPSG (‘Change in Psychotherapy’); Fonagy on mentalisation and procedural learning; the book ‘Development of Basic Emotional Competencies in OLI IPP’ (Jovanović, 2025).

What this indicator is

Understanding and the ability for adequate and flexible application of OLI protocols. The OLI working protocols are structured models of psychodynamic inquiry that distil what otherwise happens in therapy into an explicit, repeatable structure. They ARE NOT MANDATORY clinical tools — they exist as an optional framework the therapist can use in three modes. TWO PROTOCOLS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED: (1) Authentic Personality — psychodynamic, retrospective, oriented toward self-understanding; (2) Life Strategies — more pragmatic, a tool with a psychodynamic frame, oriented toward outcomes (goal-setting, breaking down into tasks, strategies; especially useful for the working alliance and translating goals into tasks; see CI 47, CI 49).

How it manifests

THREE MODES OF APPLICATION AS A DEVELOPMENTAL GRADATION: (1) COMPLETE FORM — the most mechanical application, given to the client as a task between sessions or used as the trainee’s own personal work; the client explicitly knows they are working on the protocol. (2) ABBREVIATED — key questions from the protocol are drawn out during the session, without giving the entire form. (3) INTEGRATED INTO THE CONVERSATION — the most advanced level: the therapist internally knows the structure of the protocol and uses it as a map, the client does not recognise the formal structure but has the impression of a natural conversation. TRAINEE COMPONENT: trainees work the Authentic Personality on themselves (understanding their own psychodynamics), work Life Strategies (a model of a structured psychodynamic process from beginning to end), and produce their own case study as a template for the later case study of a client.

How it is evaluated

THREE AXES OF COMPETENCY: (1) understanding of the ESSENCE and logic of the protocols — not mechanical following, but grasping what the protocol asks for and why; (2) personal work on the protocols as a trainee — a precondition for working with a client; (3) flexible application in work with the client — choosing the mode according to the phase of work, the client’s capacities, and clinical logic. SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Is this client ready for a protocol at this phase?’, ‘Which mode are you choosing and why?’, ‘How do you use the material that emerges from the protocol?’. SIGNS: the quality of integration of material from the protocol into the clinical process; avoidance of mechanical application.

How it develops

LEVELS OF MASTERY: TRAINEE — works the protocols on themselves, applies them with clients in the complete form under supervision. COUNSELLOR — chooses the mode according to the client and the phase of work, gives them as a task between sessions for suitable clients. PSYCHOTHERAPIST — integrates them into the conversation without giving a formal protocol. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: the trainee’s prior work through the protocols as a precondition. THROUGH TRAINING: understanding the psychodynamic logic of the protocols. THROUGH SUPERVISION: understanding when to give and when not. REFERENCES AND LINKS: the protocols belong to D4 (Toolset) but are explicitly linked with D6 — Life Strategies as an operative tool for the working alliance (CI 47, CI 49) — and D8 — the protocol as a tool for the trainee’s self-reflective work. RISKS: mechanical application without understanding the clinical logic; giving the protocol to a client who is not ready for it (early phase, unstable structure, acute crisis); using the protocol as a defence against contact; insisting on structured application when spontaneously opening the topic would be more appropriate; a trainee who has not adequately worked through the protocol on themselves and uses it with the client ‘as a technique’.

What this indicator is

Basic psychodynamic premises are the conceptual foundation — conscious/unconscious, defence mechanisms, symptom as compromise between desire and defence, secondary gain from the symptom. This is not only ‘knowing the concepts’ but a way of clinical thinking: the capacity not to treat the symptom merely as a hindrance to be removed, but as a meaningful product of psychic dynamics with a function in the client’s system.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in case presentation a psychodynamic perspective is visible — symptoms are linked with history, conflicts, defences. IN SPEECH: uses concepts in work with the client in a balanced way, neither too ‘scientific’ nor too simplified. IN INNER PROCESS: thinks about the client psychodynamically, not in diagnostic-labelling terms.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What are this client’s defence mechanisms?’, ‘What is the secondary gain from the symptom?’, ‘How do you understand this symptom as a compromise?’. SIGNS: coherence of the case presentation from the psychodynamic angle; the difference between a diagnostic label and dynamic understanding.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: continuous work with psychodynamic concepts in case presentation. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding one’s own defences and dynamics. THROUGH TRAINING: reading classical and contemporary psychoanalytic literature; working with case studies.

What this indicator is

Understanding that therapy is not only an exchange of information but a dynamic process in which the unconscious is gradually translated into the conscious through the phenomena of resistance, transference, countertransference, and working through. These phenomena are not deficiencies in therapy — they are the very mechanism of therapeutic work. Understanding the process means the ability to follow how the client moves through different phases, how patterns repeat (transferentially) and gradually change (through working through).

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in case presentation an awareness is visible of where the client is in the process — what the resistances are, what the transference is, what is being worked through. IN SPEECH: understands and is able to articulate the dynamics of the work, not only ‘what happened’. IN INNER PROCESS: thinks in process terms — therapy is not a set of episodes but a developmental path.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘In which phase of the process is this client?’, ‘What is being worked through?’, ‘What are the transferential and countertransferential patterns?’. SIGNS: the difference between episodic and process-based understanding in case presentation.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with long-term cases following the process over time. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: experiencing one’s own process through long-term therapy. THROUGH TRAINING: reading psychoanalytic literature on process (Greenson, Etchegoyen).

What this indicator is

PUNI is an OLI brand acronym retained from Serbian: Potrebe — Uverenja — Načini — Ishodi (in English: Needs — Beliefs — Patterns — Outcomes). The model describes the psychodynamic logic of the client’s dysfunctional cycle: Needs — basic, authentic needs; Beliefs — dysfunctional beliefs that block the satisfaction of the need; Patterns — strategies of behaviour arising from the beliefs and attempting to solve the problem in the wrong way; Outcomes — consequences that reinforce the initial beliefs and close the cycle. Counter-skills are the Beliefs + Patterns combination — beliefs and patterns that protect the person from pain but keep them in a dysfunctional system. In the book ‘Development of Basic Emotional Competencies in OLI IPP’ (Jovanović, 2025), counter-skills are defined more broadly than classical psychoanalytic literature treats them: not only as unconscious defences (in the sense of Freud’s or A. Freud’s defence mechanisms), but also including conscious habits, strategies, patterns of behaviour that were once adaptive and are now dysfunctional. This wider definition has clinical implications — different layers of counter-skills require different approaches.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in case presentation the PUNI structure is used explicitly or implicitly. IN SPEECH: able to present the PUNI cycle to the client as a shared working map. IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes layers of counter-skills — what is a conscious strategy (repeated and rationalised) and what is a deeper unconscious defence.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What are the Needs, Beliefs, Patterns, and Outcomes for this client?’, ‘What are the main counter-skills?’, ‘Are these conscious strategies or unconscious defences — and how do you choose your approach?’. SIGNS: coherent mapping of the PUNI cycle for the client; differentiation of layers of counter-skills; clinically appropriate approach to each layer.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete PUNI maps of clients. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding one’s own counter-skills across all layers. THROUGH TRAINING: the PUNI model document (psychodynamic logic); the book ‘Development of Basic Emotional Competencies in OLI IPP’; OLI seminars on the PUNI model.

What this indicator is

The OLI theory of change rests on the idea that psychotherapeutic change occurs through the replacement of counter-skills by developed emotional competencies. The aim is not only the removal of symptoms but the development of personality structures that will enable more adaptive ways of meeting life’s challenges. The difference between structural and symptomatic change: symptomatic change removes the symptom but preserves the system (often resulting in ‘migration’ of counter-skills onto a new symptom); structural change changes the system itself — the client develops new competencies that make the old counter-skills unnecessary.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: therapy goals are set in terms of developing competencies, not only removing symptoms. IN SPEECH: able to explain to the client the difference between ‘removing the problem’ and ‘developing capacities’. IN INNER PROCESS: tracks structural change, not only symptomatic.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Which counter-skills are being replaced by which competencies in work with this client?’, ‘Is the change structural or symptomatic?’. SIGNS: coherence of the goal of work with the OLI logic of change.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with long-term cases in which structural change is tracked. THROUGH TRAINING: the book ‘Development of Basic Emotional Competencies in OLI IPP’; OLI seminars on the theory of change.

What this indicator is

The OLI developmental map encompasses two levels of competencies. (1) The 8 basic emotional competencies: neutralisation (affect regulation), mentalisation (understanding of one’s own and others’ inner states), object wholeness (the capacity to see the other in their wholeness, with positive and negative aspects), object constancy (retaining the good other internally and in their absence and in moments of frustration), frustration tolerance, ambivalence tolerance (bearing contradictory feelings toward the same object), will, initiative. (2) Complex competencies that arise from developed basic ones: the capacity for love and work (Freud’s classical criterion of mental health), empathy (developed at a complex level), the capacity to be alone (Winnicott), patience, reality testing. The clinical point: the development of basic competencies is the precondition for the development of complex ones. If object constancy is in deficit, mature love cannot develop; if mentalisation is in deficit, mature empathy cannot develop. The developmental map is sequential — there is an order in which competencies are built, and clinical assessment means recognising where the client is on this map.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in client presentation a clear developmental assessment is visible — which basic competency is in deficit, how this limits the development of complex competencies. IN SPEECH: distinguishes work on basic and complex competencies; does not force the development of complex competencies (e.g. ‘learning to love’) while basic ones are not developed. IN INNER PROCESS: thinks developmentally — competencies as a map, not as a list.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Which basic competency is the client deficient in?’, ‘Which complex competencies are inaccessible to them and why?’, ‘How do you developmentally link work on basic competencies with the development of complex ones?’. SIGNS: clarity of the developmental map in case presentation; ability to articulate ‘what comes next’ in development.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with the developmental map for concrete clients. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: the therapist’s own development of all competencies — a precondition for working on them. THROUGH TRAINING: the book ‘Development of Basic Emotional Competencies in OLI IPP’ (Jovanović, 2025); the planned publication ‘Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy as Education’ (Jovanović, 2026, in preparation); OLI seminars dedicated to each competency.

What this indicator is

Character structures and psychopathological patterns are organised configurations of the personality that arise from different developmental pathways. In the OLI understanding, character patterns are directly linked with deficits in the 8 basic competencies — e.g. borderline organisation often rests on a deficit of object constancy and ambivalence tolerance; narcissistic organisation on a deficit of object wholeness. Clinically central is the distinction between DEFICIT NEUROSES and CONFLICT NEUROSES: (a) Deficit neuroses are the consequence of developmental halts in early phases — basic competencies are insufficiently developed, the client ‘has nothing’ with which to solve the problem (e.g. cannot regulate affect because the competency of neutralisation has not developed); (b) Conflict neuroses are the product of intrapsychic conflicts in later developmental phases — the competencies exist but are blocked by conflicts (e.g. the client can regulate affect but does not because there is a conflict between desire and defence). This distinction directly directs the therapeutic strategy: with deficits we build the missing capacities (competency first, insight later); with conflicts we resolve the conflicts (interpretation, working through). Wrong placement (interpreting deep conflicts in a client with deficient competencies) makes therapy unproductive or even harmful.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in case presentation a character assessment is visible, linked with competencies; the work with deficit neurosis is distinct from the work with conflict neurosis. IN SPEECH: able to articulate what is deficit and what is conflict for the specific client and how this shapes the strategy of work. IN INNER PROCESS: does not treat all clients as if they have the same developmental possibilities.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What is the character structure of the client?’, ‘Is this a deficit neurosis or a conflict neurosis — and how do you know?’, ‘How does your strategy of work depend on that distinction?’. SIGNS: clinical adequacy of the approach to the specific client; differentiation of deficit-based from conflict-based work.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with various character structures; explicit work on differentiating deficit vs. conflict. THROUGH TRAINING: McWilliams ‘Psychoanalytic Diagnosis’; Kernberg on character structures; Killingmo on deficit neuroses; OLI literature on linking character with competencies.

What this indicator is

Abstraction is the capacity to link concrete clinical material with the theoretical framework — to recognise individual events in the work with the client as manifestations of broader psychodynamic patterns. Without abstraction, therapy remains at a descriptive level (‘the client said X, I said Y’), without developmental understanding. With abstraction, the therapist sees concrete events as part of larger patterns and can plan the work accordingly.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in case presentation a theoretical backbone is visible — linking the particular with the general. IN SPEECH: able to discuss a case with colleagues at a conceptual level. IN INNER PROCESS: thinks theoretically-clinically, not separately.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How would you theoretically explain what is happening in this session?’, ‘What is the general pattern behind this concrete event?’. SIGNS: the quality of written case presentation; ability to move effortlessly between the concrete and the abstract.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with written case presentations with focus on theoretical-clinical integration. THROUGH TRAINING: reading case studies from psychoanalytic literature; writing one’s own case studies.

What this indicator is

Understanding the four psychoanalytic psychologies (drive psychology, ego psychology, object relations theory, self psychology) as the theoretical basis on which OLI integratively rests. The competency includes the ability for the therapist to choose the appropriate theoretical optic for a concrete clinical problem, to understand why each perspective applies where, and to distinguish the OLI integrative approach from eclecticism (‘a bit of everything’) and from bias toward a single school.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in case presentation an integrative theoretical framework is visible — different psychologies are used in line with clinical needs. IN SPEECH: able to articulate from which psychology they look at which problem and why. IN INNER PROCESS: understands that each psychology illuminates a different aspect of the client.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘From which psychology are you looking at this problem of the client?’, ‘What would drive psychology say about this, what would self psychology?’, ‘How do you choose the optic?’. SIGNS: integrativeness of theoretical thinking; the difference between bias toward one school and an integrative approach.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete cases from different perspectives. THROUGH TRAINING: reading representatives of all four psychologies (Freud, A. Freud, Hartmann, Klein, Winnicott, Kohut); the book ‘Development of Basic Emotional Competencies in OLI IPP’ (Jovanović, 2025) — linking the psychologies with the development of competencies; OLI literature on integrative synthesis.

What this indicator is

The declarative/procedural distinction comes from cognitive neuroscience and in contemporary psychoanalysis has been developed in the works of Daniel Stern, BCPSG (Boston Change Process Study Group, with Lyons-Ruth, Sander, Beebe, Stern, Tronick), and Fonagy. Declarative knowledge is what can be verbalised — concepts, autobiographical facts, conscious insights. Procedural knowledge is ‘know-how’ — how the person regulates emotions, builds relationships, reacts to stress; this knowledge is embodied, implicit, often inaccessible to verbalisation. The clinically central implication: psychotherapeutic change happens not only through interpretation (declaratively) but also through the experience of the relationship (procedurally). ‘Moments of meeting’ (Stern) are brief but emotionally significant moments in the therapeutic relationship that change the client’s procedural organisation. This indicator is about UNDERSTANDING the distinction (D5); operative application in the work is in D4 CI 31.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in case presentation an understanding is visible that the client learns both through words and through the experience of the relationship. IN SPEECH: distinguishes what the client ‘knows’ declaratively and what procedurally; understands why verbal insight sometimes does not change behaviour (because the pattern is procedural and requires another kind of intervention). IN INNER PROCESS: thinks about change in two ways — as insight and as new experience.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What does the client ‘know’ declaratively but does not apply procedurally?’, ‘How would you work procedurally with this client?’, ‘What is the ‘moment of meeting’ in your work with them?’. SIGNS: understanding that insight is not enough; ability to articulate procedural goals of work.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussing moments in the work that were procedurally significant. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: experiencing procedural change in one’s own therapy. THROUGH TRAINING: Daniel Stern, ‘The Present Moment in Psychotherapy and Everyday Life’; BCPSG — ‘Change in Psychotherapy: A Unifying Paradigm’ (2010); Fonagy on mentalisation and implicit relational models; Lyons-Ruth on implicit relational knowing; the book ‘Development of Basic Emotional Competencies in OLI IPP’ (Jovanović, 2025).

What this indicator is

The treatment plan — theoretical foundation encompasses what the therapist must know theoretically before writing the concrete work plan (the operative implementation is in D6 CI 50). The theoretical foundation of the plan includes: (a) clear clinical assessment — which basic competencies are in deficit, which complex competencies are inaccessible, whether this is a deficit or conflict neurosis, what the character structure is; (b) developmental logic — which competencies precede which, what is the ‘zone of next development’ for this client; (c) the source of goals — from which theory each goal is derived (e.g. ‘work on frustration tolerance’ from ego psychology; ‘work on object wholeness’ from object relations); (d) differentiation of symptomatic and structural goals. Without a theoretical foundation, the treatment plan is a mere list, not a developmental document. Explicitly mentioned in the original criteria for trainees as ‘must know how to make a treatment plan’.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in case presentation the therapist is able to articulate the treatment plan with theoretical justification. IN SUPERVISORY SPEECH: ‘my treatment plan with this client is: (1) development of neutralisation, because it is in deficit — that is from ego psychology; (2) then work on object wholeness — that is from object relations; (3) later work on mature empathy in the relationship — that is from self psychology applied to D3…’. IN INNER PROCESS: has a clear developmental map of the work.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What is your treatment plan with this client?’, ‘From which theory do you derive which goal?’, ‘Which are the deficient competencies and how are they planned to develop in sequence?’, ‘What is the developmental logic of your plan?’. SIGNS: coherence of the plan with the theoretical framework; differentiation of symptomatic from structural goals; developmental sequentiality.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: writing treatment plans for concrete clients with explicit theoretical justification; analysing where in theory each part of the plan is derived from. THROUGH GROUP SUPERVISION: following how other supervisees theoretically justify their plans; the supervisor’s feedback and discussion among other group members. THROUGH TRAINING: reading the OLI Centre’s practicum, chapters on the treatment plan; theoretical modules on emotional competencies and their developmental phases; familiarity with the psychotherapeutic phases from OLI theory of change; the book ‘Development of Basic Emotional Competencies in OLI IPP’ (Jovanović, 2025) for linking theory with the developmental map; working with the OLI map of psychotherapeutic goals.

What this indicator is

Establishing the therapeutic setting is the technical procedure that creates the structure within which psychotherapeutic work can take place at all. The setting is not an ‘administrative agreement’ — every element of the setting has a psychological function: the regularity of time provides predictability; the fee makes the relationship professional; the cancellation rules establish the client’s responsibility; the duration of the session is the frame for the work. Establishing the setting is the first therapeutic act — the quality of the established setting largely determines the quality of the work that follows.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in the first interview clearly establishes all elements of the setting; does not leave them undefined. IN SPEECH: able to explain to the client why the setting is as it is (psychological function). IN INNER PROCESS: understands that the setting is not ‘bureaucracy’ but a therapeutic structure.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How did you establish the setting?’, ‘What did you explain to the client about the cancellation rules and the fee?’, ‘Did you leave anything undefined?’. SIGNS: the quality of the established setting; ability to articulate the psychological function of each element.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete examples of establishing the setting; analysing typical client resistances to the setting (price, frequency, cancellations) and the therapist’s reactions to those resistances; following the presentations of other supervisees in group supervision and the supervisor’s feedback on the quality of establishing the setting. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: learning from one’s own therapist through the experience with them — how they establish the setting; working with one’s own anxiety about charging fees, boundaries, and refusing the client’s requests. THROUGH TRAINING: reading the trainee practicum (first interview, establishing the setting); exercises in practical modules and peer groups.

What this indicator is

Pressure on the setting is frequent and takes various forms: requests for changes of appointment, fee reductions, dual relationships, shifting of boundaries. The client’s pressure on the setting is often not ‘merely practical’ — it often carries material for the work (transferential meaning, testing of boundaries, avoidance of the work). Maintaining the setting does not mean rigidity — it means the ability to understand the pressure as clinical material and to respond to it therapeutically (not mechanically).

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not react impulsively to pressure (neither by yielding nor by rigid refusal). IN SPEECH: uses the pressure as an opportunity for work (‘why precisely now, what does this mean for you’). IN INNER PROCESS: understands the difference between a legitimate need and testing.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What requests has the client made? How did you react?’, ‘Did you yield somewhere — and why?’. SIGNS: the quality of work with pressure; the difference between rigidity and a therapeutic response.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: detailed analysis of concrete requests and the therapist’s reactions. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own need to ‘please’ the client. THROUGH TRAINING: reading on the technique of boundaries in psychodynamic work.

What this indicator is

The first interview (or the first few interviews) has a dual function: it is a diagnostic process (assessment of the client, their problems, motivation, indications for therapy, contraindications) and at the same time already the beginning of therapeutic work (establishing the setting, first experiences of the relationship). Conducting the first interview requires the integration of several competencies — D1, D2, D3, D5, and specific D6 skills.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in the first interview is able to gather the necessary information without reducing the conversation to a questionnaire; remains a therapist, does not become a ‘diagnostician’. IN SPEECH: asks questions that open the client up rather than ‘pinning them down’. IN INNER PROCESS: integrates diagnostic assessment with the clinical experience of the client.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What did you learn in the first interview and how did you learn it?’, ‘What clinical assessment do you have after the first encounter?’, ‘Did you make a decision about acceptance — based on what?’. SIGNS: the quality of the first interview as a therapeutic act and as a diagnostic process.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: presentation of first interviews with focus on what was noticed, what was missed, how the decision about acceptance was made; discussion of what is diagnostic assessment and what is already the beginning of therapy. THROUGH GROUP SUPERVISION: as an observer, the trainee follows how others have conducted first interviews and hears the supervisor’s feedback. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: has direct experience of how their own therapist did this — how they conducted the first interview and how the therapist felt in that contact at the beginning of treatment. THROUGH TRAINING: practising the first interview in practical modules; reading the OLI Centre’s practicum (the section ‘First interview and initial phase of treatment’); practising in peer groups (mastermind groups).

What this indicator is

Setting therapeutic goals is the therapist’s capacity to arrive together with the client at realistic, attainable, clinically indicated goals — not only those the client verbalises (manifest), but also those that are clinically necessary even if the client does not primarily verbalise them (latent). The goals should be linked with the developmental map (D5) — structural goals (development of competencies) often stand behind symptomatic goals (removal of symptoms).

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in case presentation articulated goals are visible; they are not only symptomatic. IN SPEECH: able to discuss goals with the client and to articulate what is realistic. IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes what the client verbalises, what the therapist sees as clinically necessary, and what is attainable.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What are the goals of work with this client?’, ‘What did the client say they wanted, and what do you see as clinically necessary?’, ‘Are the goals realistic for their level and availability?’. SIGNS: the quality of articulated goals; differentiation of manifest and latent goals.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete cases on articulating manifest and latent goals; practising the differentiation of symptomatic from structural goals. THROUGH GROUP SUPERVISION: listening to other supervisees’ presentations on goal-setting, the supervisor’s feedback, and discussion among other group members. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: direct experience with one’s own therapist in the goal-setting phase — how they did it and how the trainee themselves (as client) felt in it; working with one’s own ambitions in the work (goals too demanding) or tendencies to ‘lower expectations’ (goals too low). THROUGH TRAINING: reading the OLI Centre’s practicum (the section on goal-setting); practising in practical modules and in peer groups (mastermind groups); linking goals with the OLI developmental map of the 8 basic competencies.

What this indicator is

The working alliance is the agreement between the therapist and the client about what each is responsible for in the process — the therapist is responsible for expertise, structure, frame, professional position; the client is responsible for honesty, attendance, work. Without the alliance, therapy becomes either a ‘rescuer’ relationship (the therapist works for the client) or a formal exchange (without real contact). The working alliance is built through the first sessions and is maintained continuously through the work. Different from CI 46 (setting goals) and CI 49 (translating goals into tasks), CI 47 is about the agreement on collaboration itself — who is responsible for what and what is being worked on together.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: explicitly discusses with the client what each is responsible for. IN SPEECH: able to return the client to their part of the responsibility (‘this is something you need to do yourself’). IN INNER PROCESS: understands the limit of their own responsibility.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How is the working alliance with the client established?’, ‘Did you somewhere take over the client’s responsibility?’. SIGNS: the quality of differentiating responsibilities; ability to recognise breaches of the alliance.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete examples of the alliance and its breaches; practising the explicit setting of the division of responsibility; analysing where the trainee ‘works for’ the client instead of establishing the alliance. THROUGH GROUP SUPERVISION: listening to other supervisees’ presentations about the working alliance, the supervisor’s feedback, and discussion among other group members (when not presenting their own case, the trainee learns through others’). THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: experience with one’s own therapist — how they built the working alliance and how the trainee themselves (as client) felt in that process; working with one’s own rescuer impulses and the difference between support and taking over the client’s responsibility. THROUGH TRAINING: practical modules of the OLI Centre on building the working alliance; reading the practicum; practising in peer groups (mastermind groups).

What this indicator is

Boundaries in therapeutic work include temporal (end of session, time between sessions), spatial (meetings only in the consulting room), relational (only the therapeutic relationship, no dual relationships), and symbolic (formality of names, types of exchange) boundaries. Boundaries are not ‘rules from the code’ but the condition for psychotherapy to occur at all — without boundaries there is no psychotherapeutic relationship, there is some other type of relationship.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: clearly maintains boundaries; tests of boundaries (a gift, an offer to socialise, ‘just a quick text question’) are treated as therapeutic material. IN SPEECH: able to explain a boundary as part of therapy, not as personal rejection. IN INNER PROCESS: understands why boundaries are necessary, not only ‘because that is how it is written’.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Were there tests of boundaries? How did you react?’, ‘Is there anything that is outside clear boundaries in your work?’. SIGNS: the quality of work with tests of boundaries; ability to articulate the function of boundaries.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete examples of tests of boundaries (gifts, invitations, dual relationships); analysing how boundaries are explained to the client as part of therapy and not as rejection; the supervisor’s feedback on problems with boundaries — allowing the client to breach the therapist’s boundaries, or the therapist breaching the client’s. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY (especially emphasised for this indicator): through personal psychotherapy the trainee works through problems with boundaries in their own relationships (the need not to refuse, to be ‘good’ for others, or — conversely — rigid distancing as a defence). THROUGH TRAINING: through obligatory group psychotherapy (50 hours) the trainee sees how their boundaries function in the group and receives comments from group members; theoretically learns about ‘optimal distance’ in the module ‘Object constancy’ and through other modules; reads the practicum and ethical literature on boundaries in psychotherapeutic work.

What this indicator is

Translating goals into tasks is the ability to break down a general goal (‘development of ambivalence tolerance’) into concrete working tasks that take place in sessions and between them. Without this translation, goals remain abstract and do not guide concrete work. With it, the therapist and the client know ‘what is being worked on now and why it is being worked on now’.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: every session is clearly linked to some working task. IN SPEECH: able to explain to the client the connection between the current work and the broader goal. IN INNER PROCESS: has a clear map of ‘goal → task → current intervention’.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What is the current working task with the client?’, ‘How does that connect with the broader goal?’. SIGNS: clarity of working tasks; differentiation of goal, task, and concrete intervention.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working on translating goals into tasks for concrete clients; practising linking the task with the competency being developed; analysing how to keep the tasks the client’s (so they do not turn into the therapist’s ‘homework’). THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: experience with one’s own therapist — how the therapist worked with them on translating their goals into tasks; working with one’s own impulses to ‘hand the client’ a solution instead of working it out together. THROUGH TRAINING: the OLI working protocol ‘Life Strategies’ as an example of structured translation of goals into tasks; reading the OLI Centre’s practicum; practising in practical modules and peer groups (mastermind groups).

What this indicator is

The treatment plan — operative implementation is the technical capacity to translate the theoretical foundation of the plan (CI 42) into a concrete, applicable plan of work with a specific client. Operative implementation includes: (a) concrete goals with defined criteria of progress (‘this client should develop neutralisation to the degree of being able to recognise and name the affect before reacting’ — criterion: in 70% of provocative situations over the last 4 weeks); (b) phases of work (initial phase: stabilisation, building the alliance, mapping patterns; middle phase: working on counter-skills, developing competencies; final phase: integration, separation, transfer of functions — see CI 51); (c) concrete techniques for each phase and goal (linked with D4); (d) an approximate time frame and criteria for revising the plan; (e) recognising signs that the plan is not working and how to adapt it. In the original criteria for trainees it is explicitly stated that the trainee ‘must know how to make a treatment plan’. Operative implementation also includes evaluation of outcomes through the course of treatment — not only at the end — through periodic assessment of progress in the development of competencies, evaluation of the alliance, and revision of the plan as needed. Outcome evaluation is not a statistical metric of outcomes, but a clinical assessment: which competencies have been developed and to what degree, what comes next in the developmental sequence, whether the working alliance still covers what is being worked on.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: has a written treatment plan that they use and revise in the work; in case presentation systematic work in line with the plan is visible. IN SUPERVISORY SPEECH: ‘my treatment plan has 3 phases; in the first phase (approximately 10–15 sessions) the goal is X, I use techniques Y, the criterion of progress is Z; in the second phase…’. IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes work in line with the plan from working ‘session by session’.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What is your treatment plan with this client?’, ‘What are the phases and what is done in each?’, ‘What are the criteria of progress — how will you know if it is working?’, ‘What if the client does not move — when and how do you revise the plan?’. SIGNS: existence of a written plan; clarity of phases, goals, techniques, criteria; ability to revise.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: preparing for writing a case study with one’s own supervisor — from a concrete client to a coherent treatment plan; working with examples of good plans as reference. THROUGH GROUP SUPERVISION: following how other supervisees have developed plans for their clients; the supervisor’s feedback and discussion among other group members. THROUGH TRAINING: learning the methodology of the OLI method and the phases of the therapeutic process; theoretical knowledge of the developmental phases of emotional competencies (which competency we are working on now, which is next in the developmental sequence); reading the OLI Centre’s practicum chapters on building a treatment plan; practising in practical modules and peer groups (mastermind groups).

What this indicator is

The therapist has mastered the recognition of and work with separation themes and anxieties — the ending of therapy activates all of the client’s earlier experiential patterns with separations. These patterns are worked through by means of the experience of a ‘good separation’ with the therapist. Separation may be gradual, through reducing the frequency of meetings. (2) Integration of the gains of the work — explicitly mapping what the client has developed, what they have changed, what has remained open. (3) Transfer of functions from therapist to client — operatively checking that the client can do on their own what they previously did with the therapist (reflection, regulation, mentalisation); conceptually this is the ‘internalisation of the therapist’s functions’ — the client retains part of the therapist’s function within themselves. (4) Leaving open the possibility for the client to continue therapy when and if they need it. (5) Evaluation and working through of feelings around the parting — both the client’s and the therapist’s.

How it manifests

Recognises that the client has done what they had defined in the working alliance, sees that there are no new contents or problems on which the client wishes to work. Asks the client questions about this — whether the work has been done, whether there is anything else they need to work on, whether they have considered ending. Does not suggest ending, only explains to the client what has prompted the therapist to such consideration. Asks the client how they feel about it, evaluates with them the effects of the work so far, and any unfinished aspects of change. Recognises anxieties about autonomy, explores the basis of those anxieties with the client. Discusses all the client’s feelings about the parting. Ensures that the separation is gradual, with the possibility of returning, of resuming therapy if needed.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Are separation themes appearing — the client’s reflections on the end of therapy?’, ‘It seems there are no new contents — have you evaluated what you have done so far, is anything still missing from what you agreed on?’, ‘How are you conducting the final phase with this client?’, ‘What are you feeling about the parting — and how does that affect the work?’, ‘How is the client working with separation themes in the final phase?’. SIGNS: systematic work with the tasks of the final phase; ability to articulate what is being achieved in this phase; awareness of countertransferential reactions around the parting.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete cases in the final phase; working on one’s own reaction to parting. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own separation patterns and feelings. THROUGH TRAINING: theoretically through understanding of the phases of separation and individuation, the anxieties linked with those phases, and presentations of work with clients and their separation themes.

What this indicator is

Understanding the ethical code of the profession means knowing the formal rules that regulate psychotherapeutic practice — provisions on boundaries, confidentiality, dual relationships, conduct in crisis situations, advertising, fees. It is not only about memorising paragraphs, but about understanding why each provision exists — which ethical principle it protects, what risk it protects the client and the therapist from. Understanding the code is the starting point; without it there is no professional responsibility, even in the case of good personal ethics.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: when asked about ethics, refers to a concrete provision of the code, not only to a personal feeling; consults the code before making decisions in dilemmas. IN SPEECH: distinguishes ‘ethical obligation’ from ‘ethical principle’ from ‘ethical value’; able to articulate what the code requires in a concrete situation. IN INNER PROCESS: understands that the code is a protection — both of the client and of the therapist — not an obstacle.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What does the code say about this situation?’, ‘What are the principles behind this provision?’, ‘Do you know a recent ethical case from practice?’. SIGNS: ability to articulate the provisions of the code more precisely than ‘in general terms’; understanding of the principles behind the rules; currency — follows changes to the code.

How it develops

THROUGH TRAINING: regular ethics trainings during the course of training; reading the codes of SRP, EAP, and EACP; analysing ethical cases. THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussing concrete situations in light of the code; consultations before making decisions. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding personal values and their relationship to professional requirements.

What this indicator is

Assimilation of the code means that ethical rules become part of the personal value system rather than something imposed from outside. When ethics is assimilated, the therapist does not ask ‘am I allowed to do this?’ but feels inner resistance before even thinking of an unethical act. This is the difference between ethics as a ‘hindrance’ and ethics as a ‘frame’ — in the first case ethics restricts what would otherwise be done; in the second it shapes how the situation is even seen.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not seek justification for observing ethics; does not make ‘exceptions for themselves’ when they think no one is watching. IN SPEECH: speaks of ethics as something that is an integral part of the work, not as an external obligation. IN INNER PROCESS: feels inner alignment between professional requirements and personal values — ethics is the ‘house’ in which they work, not a ‘cage’.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What are your values in your work?’, ‘Are there moments when ethics is a hindrance for you?’, ‘How do you feel when you have to refuse a client?’. SIGNS: alignment between what they say and what they do; absence of hidden ‘exceptions’; continuity of the ethical stance also in the private context (broadly).

How it develops

THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding one’s own value system and its sources; integrating professional requirements with personal ones. THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussing moments of tension between personal feeling and professional requirement. THROUGH TRAINING: philosophical and ethical literature; conversations on value dilemmas.

What this indicator is

Recognising ethical dilemmas is the ability to notice the ethical aspect of a situation in the moment in which it is happening — not only afterwards, when the decision has already been made. Many ethical errors do not come from ‘bad’ therapists, but from those who did not see in time that the situation was of an ethical nature. It differs from technical judgement — a situation may be technically correct but ethically problematic (e.g. technically correct discharge of a client who cannot pay, which ethically disregards their crisis).

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: when an unusual request appears (the client asks for a loan, brings a gift, asks for a private meeting) the therapist pauses and considers the ethical dimension before responding. IN SPEECH: names the ethical dimension of the situation as distinct (‘this is not only a technical question, but also an ethical one’). IN INNER PROCESS: has an ‘ethical radar’ that activates in risky situations; does not wait for a crisis to explode and only then start thinking.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What is most ethically complex for you in this case?’, ‘Is there something you are doing now that you should not be?’, ‘What ethical dimension did you notice in this encounter?’. SIGNS: spontaneously brings ethical dilemmas to supervision (does not wait for the supervisor to ask); distinguishes ethical from technical dilemmas; recognises subtle forms (not only blatant ones).

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: regular discussion of ethical dilemmas in work; analysing past situations in retrospect (‘where could I have noticed earlier?’). THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own blind spots; understanding personal patterns that block ethical sensitivity. THROUGH TRAINING: case studies with ethical aspect; ethical literature; participation in ethics groups.

What this indicator is

The will to act ethically is the therapist’s ability, having recognised the ethical dimension of a situation, to act ethically — even when it would be easier, more pleasant, or more advantageous to act otherwise. It differs from recognising the dilemma (CI 54): many therapists see the dilemma but yield to their own impulses (compassion, sympathy, financial calculation, the wish to avoid discomfort). The will is what links ethical sensitivity with ethical action.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: does not make an unethical decision out of ‘good reasons’ (compassion, financial need); able to refuse when needed — both the client and themselves. IN SPEECH: does not seek hasty justification for exceptions; clearly articulates why they are not making an exception in a given case. IN INNER PROCESS: feels an inner ‘monitor’ that does not allow rationalisation; distinguishes real exceptions from pseudo-exceptions.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Is it hard for you to refuse the client something?’, ‘When did you last make an exception — and why?’, ‘Is there anything you are now doing against the code?’. SIGNS: consistency between ethical insight and action; resistance to rationalising exceptions; ability to bear the discomfort of ethical action.

How it develops

THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own impulses that are ethically risky (the need to be liked, compassion, the desire for self-affirmation). THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussing moments of weakness of will; analysing what was ‘pulling’ on them. THROUGH TRAINING: case studies of ethical errors in the literature (how they arose, what was bypassed).

What this indicator is

Reflecting on ethical dilemmas is the capacity for ethical reflection in complex situations in which there is no simple answer — where different values clash (loyalty to the client vs. protection of a third party, the client’s autonomy vs. protection from harm, confidentiality vs. legal obligation). The difference from CI 54 (recognition): there the dilemma has already been recognised; CI 56 is about HOW one engages with it cognitively. Difference from CI 57 (action): CI 56 is about reflection, not the decision.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in a complex situation does not make a quick decision; takes time for consideration; consults literature, colleagues, the code. IN SPEECH: articulates different sides of the dilemma without rushed resolution; understands that there are cases where there is no ‘good’ answer, only a ‘less bad’ one. IN INNER PROCESS: tolerates the uncertainty of an ethical dilemma; does not seek a quick ‘clean solution’ to free themselves from discomfort.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Which values are in conflict in this situation?’, ‘What would you choose and why?’, ‘Where are you uncertain and why?’. SIGNS: the quality of articulation of different perspectives; ability to bear ambivalence; structure of reflection (not only intuition).

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: joint analysis of complex dilemmas; modelling structured ethical reflection. THROUGH TRAINING: reading ethical literature (Beauchamp & Childress, principles of professional ethics); case studies. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding one’s own tendencies toward quick resolution or avoidance.

What this indicator is

The operative level of ethical work — making decisions and acting in complex situations: termination of the relationship, referral, confidentiality when there is a dilemma, conduct under suicidal risk, working with violent clients. It differs from reflection (CI 56) in that the focus in CI 57 is on ACTION. Ethics is not only about what is thought, but what is done — and what is borne after the decision.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: in crisis situations acts decisively without paralysis; able to make difficult decisions and bear the consequences. IN SPEECH: clearly articulates the reasons for the decision; does not shift responsibility (neither to the client nor to the supervisor). IN INNER PROCESS: understands the difference between an ethically correct decision and a pleasant one; tolerates the inner discomfort of ethical action.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What is your decision in this case?’, ‘How and when did you decide?’, ‘What are you carrying with you after that decision?’. SIGNS: timeliness of decisions; consultations before the decision (not afterwards); the quality of reflection on the consequences of decisions.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussing real decisions and their consequences; modelling the position of responsibility. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with anxiety about deciding; working with the need for certainty before acting. THROUGH TRAINING: case studies focused on operative decisions; working with the legal aspects of the profession.

What this indicator is

Active, unforced examination of one’s own work — not as a reaction to a mistake or to the supervisor’s request, but as part of the professional identity. In contrast to D1 (self-reflection as a capacity), here we have the SYSTEMATIC use of that capacity for professional development. The propensity for self-evaluation does not mean continuous self-criticism — it includes recognition of what has been done well, not only of mistakes.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: before and after sessions the therapist pauses and reflects; keeps some form of notes; plans the topic of the next session on the basis of reflection. IN SUPERVISORY SPEECH: ‘I have been thinking about this case and noticed X’. IN INNER PROCESS: self-evaluation is a routine, not a reaction.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How do you carry out self-evaluation in your work?’, ‘What have you noticed about your work over the last few months?’. SIGNS: the quality of reflection without the supervisor’s prompting; recognition of one’s own patterns over time.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: modelling active reflection; discussing patterns of self-evaluation. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: developing the capacity for self-examination without self-criticism. THROUGH TRAINING: keeping a working journal; peer-supervision; writing reflective essays.

What this indicator is

Not concealing mistakes, not presenting one’s work as better than it is — bringing to supervision also what has been missed, what we do not understand, what worries us. Without honesty, supervision becomes ‘reporting’ rather than a developmental space. Honesty toward self is the precondition of honesty toward supervision: if the therapist is not truthful with themselves about their own limits, they will not be able to be so with the supervisor either.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: brings to supervision oversights, uncertainties, ethical dilemmas; does not present the work as better than it is; does not hide parts of the session that went badly. IN SPEECH: uses formulations such as ‘I am not sure’, ‘I do not know what I did there’, ‘I think I may have erred’. IN INNER PROCESS: understands that the supervisory space is not for praise but for development; does not seek confirmation from the supervisor.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What did you not say in the presentation?’, ‘What was hardest for you to bring?’, ‘Is there something you are thinking now that you did not mention?’. SIGNS: ability to bring also what is ‘bad’ in the work; resistance to idealising the work; the quality of reflection on one’s own oversights.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: creating a safe space where acknowledging oversights is not a problem; modelling that the supervisor too has limits. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with narcissistic structure and the need for confirmation; developing a realistic image of the self. THROUGH TRAINING: peer-group supervision with open sharing; discussing professional mistakes in training.

What this indicator is

Interest in understanding one’s own patterns, limits, and dynamics — as a continuous stance, not as a reaction to an incident. Curiosity about oneself is the difference between ‘work on oneself is boring’ and ‘work on oneself is exploration’. Without curiosity, professional development becomes an obligation fulfilled minimally; with curiosity, it becomes a generator of new understanding of the client and oneself.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: actively asks questions about themselves (in personal therapy, in supervision); reads literature on their own themes; does not wait for a crisis to open up the topic. IN SPEECH: uses formulations such as ‘I wonder why’, ‘I find it interesting that’, ‘I would like to understand’. IN INNER PROCESS: feels real curiosity — not formal; understands that every piece of self-knowledge helps in the work.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What about yourself in the work most interests you at the moment?’, ‘What question about yourself are you carrying?’. SIGNS: the spontaneity with which they bring their own themes; the quality of questions about themselves (specificity vs. generality).

How it develops

THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: personal therapy is the primary field of curiosity about oneself. THROUGH SUPERVISION: modelling of curiosity by the supervisor. THROUGH TRAINING: working in peer groups where personal reflections are exchanged.

What this indicator is

Awareness of what comes next for personal work — Vygotsky’s ‘zone of next development’ (ZPD) applied to professional development. Knows the difference between ‘where I am now’ and ‘where I can be with the right support’. Recognising the ZPD is the precondition of conscious development. It differs from the general ‘I should advance’ — the ZPD is specific, accessible, with identified steps.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: chooses trainings, cases, and supervisions that expand capacities (not only those where they feel safe). IN SUPERVISORY SPEECH: ‘I think my next zone of development is work with narcissistic clients — it is still difficult for me’. IN INNER PROCESS: has a realistic understanding of their own development — neither grandiose nor devaluing.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What is your next zone of development?’, ‘What do you need to master now?’. SIGNS: realistic recognition of limits and possibilities; a specific, not general, plan of development.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: joint mapping of the therapist’s development; setting concrete developmental goals. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: understanding patterns that limit development. THROUGH TRAINING: planning development from a long-term perspective.

What this indicator is

Not waiting for instructions from the supervisor, but bringing questions, hypotheses, and material. Supervision is an exchange, not instruction. It differs from a passive position (‘what do you think, supervisor?’) in that the therapist themselves brings their own thinking for testing and development. An active stance does not mean ‘I know everything’ but ‘I have a view I want to test’.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: comes to supervision with concrete questions and hypotheses; does not wait for the supervisor to ‘pull’. IN SPEECH: ‘I have a hypothesis that this is X, but I am not sure — I would like to test it’. IN INNER PROCESS: feels responsibility for their own work, does not transfer it to the supervisor.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What do you want to achieve in this supervision?’, ‘Do you have a hypothesis about this case?’. SIGNS: the quality of preparation for supervision; the difference between questions seeking an answer and questions opening an exchange.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: gradually more active stance is expected of the supervisee. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with passive patterns; developing one’s own clinical thinking. THROUGH TRAINING: peer-supervision where there is no ‘authority’ giving answers.

What this indicator is

The supervisee as an active co-participant in the supervisory process, not a passive recipient. Reciprocity does not mean equality (supervisor and supervisee are not in the same position), but the supervisee’s active participation — bringing material, thoughts, resistances, transferential reactions to the supervisor. Without reciprocity, supervision becomes a ‘lecture with questions’.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: actively participates, does not only wait; offers their own ideas for discussion. IN SPEECH: not only ‘what do you think’, but ‘I think X, what do you think?’. IN INNER PROCESS: understands that the supervisor ‘needs their work’ as much as they need the supervisor — without the supervisee’s work there is no supervision.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How would you describe our supervisory collaboration?’, ‘What do you need for it to develop further?’. SIGNS: the quality of exchange in supervision; resistance to supervisory dependence.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: modelling reciprocity by the supervisor; gradually increasing expectations of the supervisee. THROUGH TRAINING: peer-group supervisions; explicit discussion of the supervisory alliance.

What this indicator is

Sustaining learning through work, additional trainings, personal therapy, and after licensing. CPD (Continuing Professional Development) is a professional obligation, not a luxury — the psychotherapist’s profession requires constant maintenance and development. Without CPD, competencies are lost, and clinical work narrows to what the therapist has already mastered.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: regularly attends trainings, reads literature, participates in peer groups; does not stop developing after licensing. IN SPEECH: ‘I am currently studying X’, ‘My next training is Y’. IN INNER PROCESS: understands that a competency that is not maintained — is lost.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What have you been reading in recent months?’, ‘What are your next trainings?’, ‘Which trainings have brought you something new?’. SIGNS: activity in CPD; ability to articulate what is being developed and how.

How it develops

THROUGH TRAINING: planning long-term development in line with the zone of next development (CI 61); active participation in professional associations; regular engagement with the literature and new evidence. THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussing the CPD plan — what has been done, what is planned, where the zone of development is; integrating new knowledge into work with concrete clients. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: continuing personal therapy or supervision of personal work after licensing, especially when new challenges arise (a new type of client, life changes that change the relationship to the profession). THROUGH RESEARCH ENGAGEMENT: reading current research in psychotherapy (efficacy of therapeutic approaches, neuroscience, developmental psychology); critical evaluation of research findings (methodology, generalisability, ecological validity); thoughtful integration of evidence into one’s own practice — neither mechanical acceptance nor dismissal. Participation in research where possible (case presentations, reflective inquiries into one’s own work, peer research).

What this indicator is

A parallel with the client’s taking over of the therapist’s functions — the supervisee learns to become their own evaluator. The aim is not independence from supervision (supervision is part of the professional identity), but the development of the capacity for independent reflection to a level where supervision becomes a chosen developmental resource, not a developmental necessity.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: over time increasingly sees and analyses on their own; the supervisor increasingly confirms and offers alternative perspectives, not basic insights. IN SPEECH: ‘I already see X, what do you see that I may not be noticing?’. IN INNER PROCESS: the supervisor becomes an ‘inner voice’ that helps even outside supervision.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What have I told you today that you did not already see?’, ‘How would you analyse this case without my help?’. SIGNS: growing autonomy of clinical thinking; ability to articulate what supervision adds to their work.

How it develops

THROUGH SUPERVISION: gradual stepping back of the supervisor; modelling the ‘internal supervisor’. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: developing the reflective position. THROUGH TRAINING: peer-supervision; possibly didactic supervision (when a future supervisee begins to become a supervisor to others).

What this indicator is

Collaboration with other professionals is the therapist’s capacity to recognise the limits of their own competence and to integrate adequately into the broader professional ecosystem around the client — psychiatrists (medication support), general practitioners and specialists (somatic aspects), social workers, educators and teachers (the context of children and adolescents), other psychotherapists (parallel treatments, partners in couple/family therapy). The specificity of this competency: it is largely NOT learned during formal training — it develops after licensing, through alumni networks, peer support, participation in professional associations, and contacts with colleagues from other professions.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: clearly refers the client where this is clinically indicated (psychiatrist, doctor, social worker); prepares the client for the referral while preserving the therapeutic relationship; communicates with other professionals concisely, ethically, and in the service of the client. IN SPEECH: able to articulate what they expect from each professional, what they keep for themselves (confidentiality), where the limit of their own competence lies. IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes their own narcissistic need to ‘do everything alone’ from the clinical assessment that referral is in the service of the client.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘Have you considered referral in this case?’, ‘With which professionals do you maintain communication for this client?’, ‘What are you keeping and what are you sharing?’. SIGNS: a list of professional contacts the therapist can turn to; the quality of the client’s preparation for referral; clarity of ethical boundaries in communication with other professionals.

How it develops

THROUGH ALUMNI NETWORKS AND PEER SUPPORT: maintaining contacts with colleagues from the OLI Centre and other psychotherapists after training; exchange of referrals. THROUGH PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS: participation in national and regional associations; contacts with colleagues from other modalities. THROUGH INTERDISCIPLINARY CONTACTS: actively getting to know psychiatrists, doctors, social workers in one’s environment; exchange of educational experiences. THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussing concrete cases of referral, the limits of competence, the ethics of interprofessional communication.

What this indicator is

Risk assessment and conduct in crisis situations is the therapist’s capacity to systematically assess risk (suicidal, risk to others, self-harm) and to react adequately. Risk assessment is not a one-time act — it is carried out at the first interview (as part of the diagnostic assessment, see CI 45), repeated as needed during treatment, and intensified when signals appear. The specificity of the OLI approach: risk is also understood through the client’s inner dynamics (counter-skills tied to self-harm, the secondary gain of crisis, suicidal ideation as communication) — not only as an external symptom to be removed.

How it manifests

IN BEHAVIOUR: asks about specific thoughts and plans not in the form of a questionnaire but in the rhythm of contact; discusses the client’s support system; does not avoid the topic out of their own anxiety; makes clear safety contracts where indicated. IN SPEECH: uses concrete words (suicide, self-harm, killing oneself) without euphemisms, since euphemisms in themselves can be a sign of avoidance. IN INNER PROCESS: distinguishes their own being flooded from clinical assessment; does not give up and does not assume more than the therapist can carry; consults with the supervisor (and in acute situations also with the relevant psychiatrist or duty psychiatric service) before remaining alone with the client in crisis.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘What did you ask about risk in the first interview?’, ‘How did the signal of risk emerge in this session?’, ‘What exactly did you say to the client when they mentioned suicidal thoughts?’, ‘What support system does this client have?’, ‘Did you make a safety contract?’. SIGNS: clarity of articulating risk and protocol; ability to open a conversation about risk without panic and without minimisation; consultation with the supervisor in crises; integration of understanding of risk with the client’s dynamics.

How it develops

THROUGH TRAINING: learning the protocols of crisis intervention; reading the practicum on working with risk; practising in practical modules (simulations of conversations about suicidality); knowing the legal framework (when reporting is obligatory). THROUGH SUPERVISION: working with concrete cases of risk; analysing moments when risk was missed or exaggerated. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: working with one’s own anxiety about death, self-harm, the loss of a client — if the therapist is flooded, they cannot be a resource for the client. THROUGH POST-TRAINING EDUCATIONS: regular updates of knowledge of current protocols and the legal framework.

What this indicator is

Practice management, administration, and self-care encompass the operative aspects of the psychotherapist’s professional life that are not clinical in the narrower sense, but without which the practice cannot be sustainable: keeping clinical records of sessions; administrative rules of the practice (scheduling, cancellations, payments); financial and legal framework; systematic self-care as prevention of burnout. Within the OLI framework, this competency is placed in D9 because it largely develops after training and concerns the context of the practice, not clinical work per se.

How it manifests

IN PRACTICAL WORK: session records are tidy and contain what is relevant (clinical content, hypotheses, plans for the next session); the administrative relationship with the client is clear and consistent; the legal and financial aspects of the practice are in order. IN SELF-CARE: the therapist has systematic mechanisms — regular supervision, personal therapy or supervision of personal work, physical activity, clear boundaries of working time, support of colleagues, occasional rest, attention to bodily and emotional signals. IN INNER PROCESS: views the practice as something that needs to be maintained in an orderly way, not as something that ‘just happens’.

How it is evaluated

SUPERVISOR’S QUESTIONS: ‘How do you keep session records?’, ‘How do you recognise when you are overloaded?’, ‘What are your mechanisms of self-care?’, ‘Are you in regular supervision and personal work?’. SIGNS: the quality of records when presented in supervision; ability to articulate the system of self-care; orderliness of the administrative relationship with clients.

How it develops

THROUGH POST-TRAINING PRACTICE: gradually establishing routines for keeping records, financial agreements; discussing with colleagues how they manage their practice. THROUGH ALUMNI NETWORKS: exchanging practical advice on managing the practice, finances, self-care. THROUGH PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS: trainings on the legal and ethical frameworks of private practice. THROUGH SUPERVISION: discussing workload, boundaries, signs of burnout. THROUGH PERSONAL THERAPY: recognising one’s own patterns that lead to overload (perfectionism, rescuer complex); working with guilt around charging fees and refusing clients.