The supervision doctoral students get nowadays differs from what was available when today’s supervisors were doctoral students. A study with experienced research supervisors from all faculties at one university in Sweden demonstrates how research supervisors’ views on research supervision can vary. At a cultural, group level certain parallels can be drawn with previous studies in regard to concordance between the area of research and the type of thesis. At an individual level, however, three different styles of supervision emerge, called researcher, leader and official which differ mainly in: their relationships to the doctoral student, their reasons for becoming supervisors, their outlook on power and, to a certain degree, their views on who is responsible for the doctoral students’ success in finalizing their projects. No parallels with for instance disciplines can be drawn. The supervisors’ views on whether and how supervision may be developed varies, in areas such as education, feedback, motivation and role models. The supervisors under study have previously not reflected that much on the question of supervision. Most of them have neither received nor requested feedback and do not expect to get honest verdicts from their students. They profess themselves to have developed a mode of supervision on their own, without assistance or any form of training. Most of them have never attended any organized supervision education and would never have attended if offered. Most of them mean that being a researcher is enough, by doing research you become a good supervisor.