The concept of “Parallel Process” is widely recognized in psychotherapy supervisionliterature (Morissey & Tribe, 2001; Raichelson, Herron, Primevera, & Ramirez, 1997; Grey &Fiscalini, 1987). Supervision of psychotherapy is essentially a triadic process where a therapist issupervised in his/her work with one or more clients (Tracey, Bludworth, & Glidden-Tracey, 2012).The concept refers to unconscious replication of relational patterns both in therapeutic dyad(consisting of therapist and the patient) and supervisory dyad (consisting of supervisor andsupervisee/therapist) (McNeill & Worthen, 1989). Many authors perceived parallel process as animportant tool in supervision and a valuable form of communication (McNeill & Worthen, 1989;Morrissey & Tribe, 2001). Interventions focused on parallel process may improve the quality ofsupervisory process (Morrissey & Tribe, 2001). Parallel process received attention in the field,though, empirical support was relatively deficient (Grey & Fiscalini, 1987; Raichelson, et al.,1997; Tracey, et al., 2012). Parallel process has its origins in psychoanalytic concepts oftransference and countertransference (Sumeral, 1994; McNeill & Worthen, 1989; Morissey &Tribe, 2001). However, some authors avoided to render parallel process within the realm ofcountertransference (e.g. Searles, 1955). On the other hand, existence of parallel process isconfirmed without affirming the unconscious aspects (Raichelson, et al., 1997; Tracey, et al.,2012). Parallel process is defined as a unidirectional process in which the process is triggered bythe unconscious of the patient (Grey & Fiscalini, 1987; Searles, 1955). However, some authorsrefer it as a bidirectional process, where the starting point may be either the patient or thesupervisor (Doerhman, 1976; Tracey, et al., 2012). In conjunction with the complex nature ofsupervision and therapy, parallel process is to be portrayed as a circular dynamic rather than aprocess with a start point (Morissey & Tribe, 2001). Some authors claim that it is an interlockingprocesses of the supervisor, therapist, and patient triad, a "game" that the triad play (Grey &Fiscalini, 1987).Mr. T is 38-year-old male patient who works as a physician in private sector. He startedtherapy for his phobia of planes. However, before he started therapy, he tried to get on plane underthe effect of mild tranquilizers. He stated that he would like to manage enplaning without the helpof drugs. His fear of planes disabled him to go Netherlands while his wife was on a sabbatical forfour months. After that incident, he came to realize this was a problem he has to deal with.Over the course of a few sessions, it was revealed that his fear about plane was actuallyrelated to his overall controlling attitude. Mr. T is a person who lives according to his schedule,and always has alternative plans if anything goes amiss. The fear of planes, in his case, is due tohis “not being able to do anything” if something unexpected happens during the flight. He reported“if something goes wrong in a car, you stop; if something happens on a ship, you jump out andswim” and added “when something happens on a plane, there is nothing you can do about it.”The most prominent features in Mr. T’s therapy process are clustered around the controlrelated issues. For instance, digressions from the ongoing agenda within sessions were common.Mr. T willingly agrees upon on a topic to explore in sessions; on the other hand, sessions end upwithout deepening on that particular subject. In supervisory sessions, therapist and supervisorwished to focus on different aspects when this case was handled. For example, the therapistwanted to probe more about the current effects of controlling attitude on patient’s work and sociallife, the supervisor gave directions intensifying on the relationship between the therapist and thepatient. The supervisory and therapeutic processes were parallel in a manner that in both dyads node facto consensus was reached on process’ agenda; although, in both relationships it was agreedupon to work on some particular issues. Therapist felt misunderstood, and assumed that supervisor did not wanted to listen to what he tried to recount. Hence, the therapist thought the supervisorwas critical of him. As this was verbalized in supervisory process, an insight about the fact that thepatient might have felt misunderstood and criticized by the therapist, surfaced. In the light of thisinsight, therapist commented on how in sessions the conversation went off topic and his efforts tostay on topic make the situation worse, Mr. T expressed he felt forced when he actually hasdifficulties even talking about the subject matter. After that confrontation, digressions within thesessions gradually decreased, and the alliance on exploration of topics boosted.As illustrated in the case example, parallel situations occurred in both therapeutic dyad andsupervisory dyad. As Searles (1955) highlighted, an anxiety originating from patient introducedinto the therapeutic relationship (the one directional model), and conveyed through therapist tosupervisor. Working on parallel process issues on supervisory dyad paid well, and a progress havebeen made in the therapeutic relationship. The case illustration fitted well to parallel processmodel of Searles (1955).