I have always thought supervision works best when it helps me think rather than simply giving me another place to report what I have done. That distinction matters even more with ADHD because the value of supervision can disappear very quickly if most of my cognitive effort is being used to remember the right information, hold several actions in mind and look organised enough to reassure the other person that I am on top of everything.
A supervision conversation can be excellent and still fail at the point where it relies on memory. I may leave with complete clarity about what needs to happen and then discover three days later that the clarity did not come with a reliable retrieval system. That is not because the conversation was meaningless or because I did not care about the actions. It is because understanding something in the room and remembering to re-enter it at the right moment are different executive tasks.
The best supervision for me externalises more of the process. Actions are visible, priorities are explicit and the next step is clear enough that I do not have to recreate the entire discussion before I can begin. I also work better when I can prepare in ways that suit my brain rather than being handed a rigid form and expected to think in the order somebody else designed.
Good supervision also makes room for non-linear thinking. Sometimes I need to move between cases, themes and ideas before I understand what is bothering me. A supervisor who insists that we finish one tidy box before touching another may get a cleaner record but miss the connection I was trying to make. Structure helps me; over-structuring can stop me thinking.
There is a similar issue with silence. I sometimes need a pause before I answer because my brain is sorting through several possible threads, and I have learnt that filling the silence too quickly can interrupt that processing. Equally, there are moments when talking something through out loud is exactly how I discover what I think. Supervision that is neuroinclusive needs enough flexibility to recognise both.
None of this means lowering accountability. In fact, I think clear accountability becomes easier when the process does not rely on somebody successfully masking the places where they need support. If actions matter, make them visible. If a deadline matters, agree what will cue it. If something keeps not happening, become curious about the barrier before deciding it is an attitude problem.
Barry would probably approve of supervision that looks at the web rather than inspecting one thread at a time. The point is not to make the web tidy for the supervisor. It is to help the practitioner understand where the tension is, what is connected and what needs attention next.