The "Good" Supervisor

Alfred Kadushin

Daniel Harkness

Supervision in Social Work (4^th edition)

Columbia University Press

2002

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023112/023112094X.HTM

At various points in the text, reference has been made in passing to factors that characterize "good" supervision. Our objective at this point is to pull together and highlight these factors in a systematic way. The recapitulation is based on reviews of the supervision research literature, empirical studies of effective and ineffective supervision, studies of supervision associated with supervisees' positive and negative responses to supervisors, and studies that define the kind of supervision that has the highest possibility of achieving the objectives of supervision (Hansen and Warner 1971; Nash 1975; Mayer and Rosenblatt 1975b; Hansen, Pound, and Petro 1976; Herrick 1977; Thing 1979; Ford 1979; Blumberg 1980; Lambert 1980; Hansen, Robins, and Grimes 1982; Shulman 1982; Kaplan 1983; Zucker and Worthington 1986; Allen, Szollos, and Williams 1986; Rabinowitz, Heppner, and Roehlke 1986; Carifio and Hess 1987; Kennard, Stewart, and Gluck 1987; Schacht, Howe, and Berman 1989; Wetchler, Piercy, and Sprenkle 1989; Baril 1989; Grube and Painton 1990; Wetchler and Vaughn 1991; Shanfield, Matthews, and Hetherly 1993; Worthen and McNeill 1996; Lambert and Ogles 1997; Lazar and Eisikovits 1997; Vonk and Thyer 1997; Watkins 1997; Henderson, Cawyer, and Watkins 1999; Anderson, Schlossberg, and Rigazio-DiGilio 2000; Magnuson, Wilcoxon, and Norem 2000; O'Connor 2000).

It needs to be noted that the picture of the "good" supervisor that emerges from the research is derived primarily from findings regarding supervisee satisfactions and preferences. The "good" supervisor is one the supervisees most prefer, find satisfactory, respond to positively, and like, and trust.

Little empirical research into outcomes related to the supervisee, and especially to the supervisee's clients, has been done (Lambert and Ogles 1997; Ellis and Ladany 1997). Outcome research would provide results showing that the "good" supervisor's supervisees are more efficient and effective, learn more and better than supervisees of other supervisors, or that clients of the "good" supervisor's supervisees made quicker and better progress in their treatment (Jaynes et al.1979; Steinhelber et al.1984; Ginsbery, Weisberg, and Cowan 1985; Kadushin 1981; Sosin 1986; Harkness and Poertner 1989; Harkness and Hensley 1991; Harkness 1997).

The following listing presents a composite picture of the "good" supervisor, organized in terms of the supervisory functions discussed in the text - Administrative Supervision, Educational-Clinical Supervision, and Supportive Supervision.

As an Administrator the Good Supervisor:

1. Accepts, is comfortable with, and appropriately implements the administrative authority and power inherent in the position in a nonauthoritarian manner; holds workers accountable for assigned work and sensitively but determinedly evaluates supervisees practice; balances support and clear expectations of work in conformity with clearly defined performance standards;

2. Provides clearly structured procedures and constructive feedback for workers in their relation to the agency and their clinical practice: The "good" supervisor provides direction, confronts when appropriate, and provides constructive, honest, critical feedback in a way that respects supervisees' strength and confident growth toward independence;

3. Makes active efforts to integrate agency's need for production with the socio-emotional needs of the workers, balances agency output objectives with workers morale, makes task demands with concern for employees, balances instrumental tasks with expressive needs;

4. Is unobtrusive in her supervision, so that supervisees know that they are being supervised but are not consciously and explicitly aware of this; availability without continuous presence is manifested;

5. Is generally physically available as well as psychologically accessible and approachable;

6. Develops and maintains good interpersonal relationships among the group of workers she supervises;

7. Communicates effectively up as well as down the hierarchical communication ladder, vigorously representing workers messages for administration's consideration, and representing administration's concerns fairly and understandingly to supervisees;

8. Balances the agency's need for stability with need to change; and is ready to advocate for validated change.

As an Educator the Good Supervisor:

9. Has a positive, forward-looking attitude toward social work and its mandate; displays a solidarity with and commitment to the profession; embodies the values of the profession in his behavior.

10. Displays a sincere interest in promoting supervisee learing and professional development balancing control and direction with respect for supervisee's autonomy

11. Has expert, updated knowledge of social work theory and practice and is ready to share such expertise in providing the supervisee with information and suggestions relevant to practice problems;

12. Has a problem-solving orientation toward the work of the supervisee based on consensus and cooperation derived from democratic participation rather than power-centered techniques and superordinate-subordinate relationships;

13. Provides a clear flexible structure for the supervisor-supervisee relationship;

14. Actively prepares for conferences and group supervisory meetings; preparation involves review of knowledge of supervisees as well as knowledge of content;

15. Is culturally sensitive in helping the supervisee to understand clients in their situation; is nonsexist and nonracist in orientation;

16. Establishes benign relationships with supervisees characterized by a sense of psychological safety--accepting, warm, empathic, respectful, interested, supportive, flexible, genuine;

17. Is ready, willing, and able to share expertise, effectively teaching her practice in a way which optimally facilitates learning; sharing involves readiness to engage in appropriate self-disclosure;

18. Displays technical professional competence in helping supervisees with their work as well as competence in interpersonal human relations with supervisees;

19. Is ready to tolerate and accept mistakes and failures recognizing these as a natural component of the learning experience;

In Being Supportive the Good Supervisor:

20. Projects an attitude of confidence and trust toward the supervisee, resulting in optimization of supervisee autonomy and discretion;

21 Is ready, willing, and comfortable in offering praise and approval for good performance; is equally ready to challenge and confront inadequate work;

22. Is sensitive to the manifestations of workers' stress and is flexible in adjusting work demands accordingly;

23. Establishes full and free reciprocal communication with the supervisee in an atmosphere that not only permits but encourages the expression of authentic feeling;

24. Is comfortable in nondefensively considering negative feedback and countertransferance reaction and is tolerant of constructive criticism;

25. While appropriately supportive she is not emotionally intrusive on workers private concerns.

In the end, it may all add up to the maxim "Good supervisors are available, accessible, affable, and able." The general picture of the "good" supervisor shows him/her to be a person who is a technically competent professional, with good human relations skills and good organizational-managerial skills. But the contribution of the effective supervisor to the supervisor-supervisee interaction is only one factor in the equation. A detailed analysis of ninety-four supervisory experiences based on structured interviews found that supervisees also made a contribution to the kind of relationship that developed. While supervisors were more or less inclined to be permissive or controlling, directive or nondirective, egalitarian or distant, accepting or disparaging, these tendencies were muted or intensified by the supervisees' own characteristic way of relating.

In order for a supervisor to be collaborative, the supervisee must be someone he can collaborate with; [supervisees] who have a collaborative approach to supervision themselves most probably elicit collaborative behavior from their supervisors. . . . In many cases a supervisor's coercive style may be the result of the [supervisee's] continually challenging or resisting his authority. . . . The exercise of coercive power is not necessarily attributable to the intrapsychic dynamics of the supervisor but may be the result of the supervisory interaction. (Nash 1975:26)

Some supervisors were described by some supervisees as their most preferred supervisor while the same supervisor was described by others as their least preferred supervisor.

The configuration of effective and ineffective supervision that emerges is then in the nature of a generalization. This implies that an approach to supervision that mirrors the "good" supervisor configuration is more apt to lead to effective supervision. But like all generalizations, it suggests that this is not invaribly the case. The complexity of bidirectional interaction between supervisee and supervisor precludes any such statement. A contingency model that takes into consideration the uniqueness of the relationship between these factors comes closer to the truth. It argues for a best-fit decision on the part of the individual supervisor in contact with a particular supervisee working in a particular agency offering service to a specific client in an idiosyncratic, problematic situation. But a generalization is useful. It suggests that among the myriad of possibilities, the relevant literature shows the approaches listed above should be given priority for consideration because the research indicates they have been shown to be effective for many supervisors in many instances.