Supervision an effective partnership: The experience of running workshops for supervisees in

Transcription

1 Supervision an effective partnership: The experience of running workshops for supervisees in Margaret Morrell Margaret Morrell (Dip. Social Work, 1973, Registered Social Worker, MANZASW) works as a supervisor in private practice in Christchurch. She principally provides supervision for supervisors, team-leaders and managers. She regularly runs training courses for supervisors in health and social services throughout New Zealand. She welcomes approaches from individuals and organisations about training for supervisors, organisations and supervisees. Abstract This article is based on a paper delivered by the author at the Inaugural Australian Counselling and Supervision Conference, Brisbane in February. During 2004-, the author developed a training workshop for supervisees and delivered it throughout New Zealand. This article explores the rationale for, and philosophy of, the workshop, the literature supporting it, an overview of the programme, the experience of running workshops, and an evaluation of the outcomes. Introduction Over the last years, there has been a growing recognition amongst social workers and health professionals that supervision is a profession in its own right, with its own body of knowledge and skill set (Morrell 2003). Much more emphasis than ever before is being placed on the provision of quality, effective, accountable supervision, and there has been a commensurate growth in training opportunities for supervisors. Supervisor training has undoubtedly benefited supervisors, supervisees, organisations and clients. However, this approach is limited by only working with one half of the supervision relationship. It seems timely to consider the best way to provide full information to supervisees, so that they can be active participants in, and fully benefit from, the supervision process. This article covers the philosophy and literature supporting the development of training workshops for supervisees, an overview of the programme and an evaluation of the experience of running the workshops. Rationale Inskipp and Proctor (1993) define supervision as a working alliance between a supervisor and a supervisee. This concept of supervision as a partnership relies on supervisees, as well as supervisors, understanding the purpose and process of supervision, and their respective roles and responsibilities. Traditionally it has been the supervisor s role to teach the super- 39

2 visee about supervision. As supervisors often have a variety of approaches to the process, supervisees are at times left confused and uncertain about the purpose and benefits of supervision and their own part in it. In 12 years of running training courses for new and experienced supervisors in a range of settings, I have repeatedly heard from participants that it would be useful for their supervisees to be given similar information about the models and approaches to supervision they have been exposed to on the courses. I have also frequently heard from supervisors whom I supervise myself that their supervisees suffer from a lack of knowledge about what to take to, and how to use, their supervision sessions. Additionally, managers of organisations speak of their concern that their staff may not be using their supervision in the most effective and constructive way, thus raising questions about the cost-effectiveness, particularly of external supervision, for the agency and its clients. As a result of these findings, I decided in 2004 to develop a workshop for supervisees entitled Supervision an effective partnership. I publicised and delivered it in a number of centres around New Zealand. The workshop is designed to empower both experienced and new supervisees to become active participants in, and to make the best use of, their supervision. Literature In the early 1990s I ran a series of workshops for supervisees at the request of a number of organisations in Christchurch. These were based principally on the training resources developed by Inskipp and Proctor (1993). Their well-known audiotapes, and accompanying booklet, provided an excellent framework, covering definitions of supervision, self-awareness as a supervisee, making the most of each session and review of supervision. Inskipp and Proctor (1993) presented a very extensive section on Negotiating a working agreement which covered the topics to consider when working out a unique individual supervision contract. This approach to supervision contracts is expanded in Proctor (1997). They also provided practical ideas around preparation for supervision and a very thorough section on how to prepare for a review and give feedback to your supervisor. These ideas were all still appropriate for the courses I planned to deliver in The early workshops were shorter, and did not include a section on reflective practice, in part because Inskipp and Proctor s reflection tool Interpersonal Process Recall did not seem appropriate or helpful for the range of professional groups who attended the workshops. In the intervening years, a number of excellent books have been produced about supervision, such as Bond and Holland (1998), Hawkins and Shohet (2000), Morrison (2001), Knapman and Morrison (1998). These have all included some reference to reflective practice, and particularly to Kolb s (1998) experiential theory of adult learning and its relevance for supervision. There has been a growing emphasis on supervision as a space for thinking (Mollon, 1997: p.24,) and on reflection being the key to professional growth (Skovholt and Rønnestad, 1995, cited in Neufeldt, 1999). These ideas now form a pivotal part of many supervisor training programmes, and it seemed essential to explore them fully in my current programme for the supervisee workshop. 40

3 Researching literature aimed at supervisees, I found Knapman and Morrison (1998) provided an excellent section on reflection, which is very practical. Bond and Holland (1998) develop these ideas further and provide practical information on a number of frameworks to assist the supervisee with the concepts and skills of reflection. Bond and Holland also provide useful material on the range of issues which can be taken to supervision. In seeking to place the supervisee workshop in a context of social work and allied health professions within Aotearoa New Zealand, I found Knapman and Morrison s first chapters particularly useful. They also provide extensive coverage of the purpose, components, functions and benefits of supervision. The latest comprehensive handbook for supervisees by Carroll and Gilbert (2004) shows, by its size, how much information practitioners need in order to become reflective practitioners. Carroll and Gilbert emphasise that supervision is a process of learning, and focus on the work the supervisee must engage in in order to continually grow and develop. They, too, use Kolb s experiential learning cycle as their model for reflection, and expand on particular aspects of learning, such as how to dialogue, learning emotional awareness, and realistic self-evaluation. Their work on supervision contracts introduces the valuable idea of dividing contracts into two sections, the business section and the psychological section similar to Atherton s (1986) personalised section of the contract (page 45). Development of the programme In New Zealand in the 21st century, supervision has become a professional requirement in a range of human service occupations. In attempting to develop a workshop for supervisees, the challenge was to design a programme which would be appropriate for a wide spectrum of professions, organisations and cultures. Participants experience of supervision was expected to be quite diverse, some having line-management supervision, some external supervision and others a combination of the two. It was anticipated that some participants would be new to supervision and some would be experienced supervisees or even supervisors themselves. From my experience of running training courses for supervisors, I was also aware of the challenge of finding an appropriate balance between information-giving and an interactive, practice-based training opportunity. The choice of title Supervision an effective partnership illustrates two of my fundamental beliefs about supervision. The first is, as stated above, that supervision works best when it is a working alliance (Inskipp and Proctor 1993) two people engaged in working together, rather than one person, the supervisor, delivering supervision to another person, the supervisee, who passively receives it. The second is the notion that supervision should be effective and productive, in providing some beneficial outcomes for the supervisee, the organisation (s)he works for, and, above all, for the clients. These outcomes should be related to objectives defined in each supervision relationship. The Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (1998) defines appropriate objectives of supervision as: competency, accountable practice, continuing professional development and education, and personal support. 41

4 The programme consisted of the following modules: Definitions of good supervision, in all its forms and contexts, using the work of Kadushin (1976) on the components of supervision. Self-awareness as a supervisee, in terms of understanding what each person wants and needs from supervision, using a specially developed questionnaire. Choosing a supervisor (where appropriate) and laying good foundations for the supervisory relationship, by a thorough introductory process and detailed negotiated agreement or contract. Principles of reflective practice, using Kolb s experiential learning cycle. An overview of the range of issues which can be discussed in supervision. Practical information on preparing well for sessions, and presenting issues to the supervisor to achieve the desired outcome from each session. A section on evaluating supervision, and giving the supervisor honest feedback. Response to the programme The workshop was very popular. Enrolments were high and the course was repeated in several centres. A wide variety of people enrolled, with a range of supervision experience. Additionally, organisations were extremely receptive to the idea of training their staff to use supervision well, and I was invited to facilitate the workshop in a number of statutory and voluntary organisations and health boards throughout New Zealand. The diversity of people attending, and organisations hosting, the courses meant that the content and emphasis of the workshop, as well as the presentation style, needed to be flexible in order to meet the needs of the different groups. Some participants from statutory organisations had a reasonably cynical view of supervision stemming from their less than optimal experiences over the years. Their experience of supervision was principally of its administrative or managerial functions (Kadushin, 1976, cited in Knapman and Morrison, 1998) and of case management. The most helpful approach in the workshop for these practitioners, was a) to emphasise participants own ability to be reflective, providing them with models such as Kolb to assist with their process of reflection, and b) to empower them to try to take more control of their supervision by requesting that at least a part of each session be used as a reflective space. Workers from non-government organisations had a range of experience of supervision. Many had found it helpful, but attributed this to their supervisors having been particularly skilled. Most, even professionally trained social workers, had not been exposed to reflective practice frameworks or to self-awareness exercises. Many allied health professionals in hospitals saw supervision as being principally concerned with competency assurance, due to the recent passing of the Health Practitioners 42

5 Competency Assurance Act (2003). Many struggled with the concept, purpose and functions of supervision, and needed assistance with devising, and putting into effect, supervision policies, procedures and processes. Their approach was diametrically opposed to the statutory workers, in that many of them were accustomed to working autonomously, often in isolation (in rural areas in New Zealand) and were finding the concept of relinquishing this autonomy very difficult. Some (nurses being one example), came to the course with a preconceived notion of supervision as a critical and destructive process. It was most enlightening for this group to be introduced to Kadushin s (1976) three components of supervision and to consider how the educational and supportive functions could be carried out in a competency assurance environment. Common to all the groups, even amongst experienced supervisees, was a surprising lack of knowledge and understanding about the purpose, content and process of supervision and especially of the supervisee s roles and responsibilities, and ability to influence its effectiveness. Generally practitioners seemed to place themselves in the hands of their supervisor, and base their judgement of whether or not supervision was useful on the supervisor s perceived ability or lack thereof. Workshop participants gained new understanding about their roles and responsibilities in supervision. They were struck by the concept that their needs and expectations of supervision are unique and changing; that these needs are influenced by their personal, professional and learning styles, their supervision history (Morrison, 2001), and their developmental stage (Brown and Bourne,1996); that they could increase their own understanding of their needs by simple self-awareness exercises; and that they could influence how well supervision meets their needs by taking a more active role in preparing for, and determining the format and process of, their sessions. Whilst most participants had experience of supervision contracts, for many this experience was of being asked to sign a standardised form, covering ground rules and accountability issues. The notion of a unique agreement for each supervisory pair, in which process issues, requests and expectations are fully explored and negotiated, was one of the most striking aspects of the training for many participants. Ideas around reflective practice were largely new. Most trainees had some knowledge of the term, but they were unfamiliar with models which assist reflection, or the practicalities the how of reflection. Participants were fascinated and excited by the learning around journalling, and using Kolb s experiential learning cycle to provide practical tools and questions to assist the development of the internal supervisor. Over the courses I facilitated, I encountered a range of understanding of useful topics to discuss in supervision, methods of pre-session preparation and agenda-setting to achieve desired outcomes. Whatever their level of experience and understanding, participants were intrigued by the notion that supervisors are not mind readers and that it is helpful to use entry statements (Inskipp and Proctor, 1993) to explain to a supervisor the particular objective and focus for discussing each issue. I have learnt from my supervisor training courses that review of the supervision relationship, whilst clearly set out in the contract, rarely happens on a regular basis. This 43

6 was again apparent on the supervisee workshops. One explanation for this could be that many of us experience difficulty giving feedback to others, and that this is reinforced in the supervision relationship by the perceived power differential. Participants appreciated being given a framework for review of supervision and some guidelines for giving and receiving feedback. Evaluation Overall, the workshops seemed to cover the topics that were needed and useful for participants. Despite some of the material being presented as prior reading, one day was not long enough at least one and a half days would have been a more useful time-frame. Some organisations requested a half day follow up course and this was very beneficial. The balance of information-giving and opportunities for group discussion and practice exercises seems to have been appropriate. Participants also enjoyed the videos I had made with a colleague to demonstrate the difference between a passive supervisee and an active participant in the process of supervision. An evaluation was completed by each participant at the end of the day s workshop. As indicated above, they undoubtedly gained new insights. They left the course with more self-awareness, and an understanding of the process of supervision which, for many, was quite new. Above all, evaluations showed that participants felt empowered by the workshop to take more control of their supervision, by engaging in a regular process of reflection and journalling, by providing their supervisors with more information about their expected outcomes, and by giving their supervisors feedback on how the supervision was going for them. Some examples of comments are:- It has given me a positive look at what can be achieved in supervision. I have clear guidelines as to what to expect from supervision and how to be prepared. I can go to supervision more confident that I can fulfil my part and I shall now get a lot more out of supervision. Very well put together day all sessions relevant to the nursing sphere. A follow up questionnaire was sent out to a random selection of participants three to four months after their workshop. The results showed that the ideas from the course had continued to be useful in: understanding their own roles and responsibilities (93%), ability to give feedback to supervisor (76%), changing the power balance in the supervisory relationship (76%), use of reflective practice (95%), reviewing the supervision relationship (73% had undertaken a review since doing the course and 100% of those said the ideas from the course had been helpful in that process). Conclusion The workshop for supervisees was designed in response to considerable evidence that practitioners need more information about many aspects of supervision, and in response to 44

7 the growing body of knowledge about the importance of reflective practice for continuing growth and development. The experience of running several workshops confirmed the view that supervisees sense of agency increases when they are given information about their role in the supervision process by means of a training workshop. Supervisory approaches which are similarly empowering of the supervisee, such as the solution-focused approach, have been shown to have a direct effect on the worker/client dynamic (Harkness, 1995, cited in Triantafillou, 1997), it therefore seems likely that the shift in the power balance in the supervision relationship which results from these workshops will also have parallel positive outcomes for the participants clients. Social service and health-related organisations in are particularly concerned with preventing stress and burn-out in their workers on the one hand, and with fiscal constraints and assured outcomes on the other. The course is simple to develop and run and very costeffective, and benefits not only participants, but also clients, organisations and supervisors. It would seem logical for supervisee training workshops to be run routinely as a module on social work and other professionals training courses, and on organisational induction programmes. References Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (1998) Policy Statement on Supervision. Education and Training Committee. ANZASW. Atherton, J. (1986). Professional Supervision in Group Care. A Contract based Approach. Tavistock: London. Bond, M. and Holland, S. (1998). Skills of Clinical Supervision for Nurses. Open University Press: Buckingham. Brown, A. and Bourne, I. (1996). The Social Work Supervisor. Open University Press: Buckingham. Carroll, M. and Gilbert, M. (2004). On Being a Supervisee: Creating Learning Partnerships. Self published. Harkness, D. (1995). The Art of Helping in Supervised Practice: Skills, relationships and outcomes. The Clinical Supervisor, (in press). Hawkins, P. and Shohet, R. (2000). Supervision in the Helping Professions, 2nd Edition. Open University Press: Buckingham. Health Practitioners Competency Assurance Act (2003). New Zealand. Inskipp, F. and Proctor, B. (1993). Making the Most of Supervision. Cascade Publications: Twickenham. Kadushin, A. (1976). Supervision in Social Work. University of Columbia Press: New York. Knapman, J. and Morrison, T. (1998). Making the Most of Supervision in Health and Social Care. Pavilion: Brighton. Kolb, D. (1998). The Process of Experiential Learning. In D. Kol (Ed). Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall: London. Mollon, P. (1997). Supervision as a Space for Thinking. In G. Shipton. Supervision of Psychotherapy and Counselling. Open University Press: Buckingham, Philadelphia. Morrell, M. (2003). Forethought and Afterthought two of the keys to professional development and good practice in supervision. Social Work Review. Autumn/Winter: Morrison, T. (2001). Staff Supervision in Social Care, 2nd edition. Pavilion: Brighton. Neufeldt, S. (1999). Training in Reflective Processes in Supervision. In E. Holloway and M. Carroll. Training Counselling Supervisors. Proctor, B. (1997). Contracting in Supervision. In C. Sills (Ed). Contracts in counselling. Sage: London: Triantafillou, N. (1997). A Solution-focused Approach to Mental Health Supervision. Journal of Systemic Therapies 16(4). 45