Nelson and M. L. Friedlander (2001) offers an important leap forward in understanding what contributes to problematic clinical supervision. First, to organize and extend this line of inquiry, the author proposes that a distinction be made between bad supervision (ineffective supervision that does not harm or traumatize the supervisee) and harmful supervision (supervision that harms or traumatizes the supervisee). Second, the author highlights the data from the 2 studies that were found most striking and disquieting (e.g., a sizable portion of the respondents experienced harmful supervision) and discusses the implications of these data. Third, the author offers 5 recommendations for research, practice, and the psychology profession. The research presented by Nelson and Friedlander (2001) and Gray, Ladany, Walker, and Ancis (2001) offers an important leap forward in understanding what contributes to bad and harmful clinical supervision. The topic of problematic supervision is an important one. In fact, I suggest that the topic of harmful supervision has been a taboo subject (Beck & Ellis, 1998; Conroe & Schank, 1989; Ellis, Swagler, & Beck, 2000). Hence, I commend the authors for their impressive work on a neglected and essential topic. My comments regarding these two articles encompass three domains. First, I suggest a simple conceptual framework to organize and extend this line of inquiry. Second, I highlight a few key findings and their implications. Third, I offer a few recommendations. Bad and Harmful Supervision The first issue is the lack of a unified framework for or accepted definition of supervision that goes badly or harms supervisees. Thus far, there have been almost as many terms as there are articles addressing the phenomenon of bad supervision: negative supervi