‘Practitioners need to experience being dignified to foster the moral courage required to be vulnerable, open to critique, and resist engaging in supervision, with a static defence against negative judgements. Creating relationships with the intention of guarding against violations of the practitioners’ dignity is at the heart of my supervision work.’
– Vikki Reynolds, 2014[1]
There is evidence that structured, supportive and reflective supervision helps to improve practitioner retention[2] and performance. This results in higher-quality services. Australian-based social workers ‘passionately’ value supervision as an ‘indispensable function’ that makes a positive contribution to their professional development.[3]
For programs to be safe for clients, they must also be safe for workforces. This means management must consider organisational stress, demands and pressure and how these factors affect workforce anxiety.[4]
Organisations need a plan to manage this stress.[5] This requires a broad understanding of the effects of negative stress (noting some stress is necessary and positive) on individuals.
Supervision can play a crucial role in reducing anxiety and stress associated with the work.[6] Providing safety also involves prioritising workforce wellbeing and being sensitive to signs of vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue and burnout.
Family violence, sexual assault and child wellbeing work can disrupt a practitioner’s worldview. It can lead them to think violence is everywhere and it can affect their views about their current and past relationships.
Working within an imperfect system can also make practitioners feel unable to support clients in the way they would like to. This can lead to feelings of helplessness. It can also take a ‘collective toll’ on practitioners.
Supervisors need to be empathic, help practitioners maintain perspective and plan for how they might advocate for systemic change.
A positive supervisory relationship is key to good quality supervision and to supervisees’ satisfaction with supervision.[7]
References
[1]V Reynolds, ‘Centering ethics in therapeutic supervision: fostering cultures of critique and structuring safety(opens in a new window)’, The International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work(opens in a new window), 2014, 1:1–13.
[2] J Carpenter, CM Webb and L Bostock, ‘The surprisingly weak evidence base for supervision: findings from a systematic review of research in child welfare practice (2000–2012)’, Children and Youth Services Review, 2013, 35(11): 1843-1853, doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.08.014.
[3] Egan et al., ‘Trust, power and safety in the social work supervisory relationship: Results from Australian research’.
[4] Wonnacott, Mastering social work supervision.
[5] Wonnacott, Mastering social work supervision.
[6] R Davies, Stress in social work, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, 1998.
[7] D Livni, TP Crowe and CJ Gonsalvez, ‘Effects of supervision modality and intensity on alliance and outcomes for the supervisee’, Rehabilitation Psychology, 2012, 57(2):178–186, doi: 10.1037/a0027452.
Updated