WITHIN THE SOCIAL WORK PROFESSION
4.4 Supervision in Social Work
4.4.1 The Importancel Benefits of Supervision
Supervision is said to be important for a number of reasons. According to Simpson (2002), supervision is important for accountability in the spending of public money, to co-ordinate the activities of social workers within bureaucratic structures, to protect clients, to share decision-making in cases where such decisions have a major impact on the lives of people, and to provide support in the context of the emotional nature of social work practice. Kemp (1985), Van Biljon (1970) and Van lyl (1995), cited in Van lyl and Botha (1997: 26), found in their research that social workers rely heavily on the knowledge, experience and support of their supervisors, and that only a small percentage of social workers expand their knowledge through self-study. The reasons cited in Van lyl and Botha (1997:26) for these findings were:
• The supervisor is more readily available than theoretical resources.
• Social workers value practical experience more than theoretical knowledge.
• Social workers do not have sufficient time for self-study.
• The wide variety of services that the social worker needs to render, and the variety of social problems that the social worker needs to address, seem to de-motivate the worker regarding self-study.
• High workloads, time pressure and lack of finances militate against the workers' undertaking self-study or from using other methods for their professional development.
In order for them to learn job-related tasks and procedures and to develop as skilled professionals, they must therefore make appropriate and effective use of supervision. Although social workers seek growth and development professionally and expect the supervisors to playa meaningful role in this goal, it was found that South African supervisors often lack or have limited knowledge. Kadushin's (1992) study on supervision reaffirms supervisors' limited or lack of knowledge in supervision.
Botha (2000) states that recent opinions expressed in South Africa were to the effect that supervision appeared to be unnecessary, expensive and ineffective. Botha (2000) argues, however, that the problem does not lie with the necessity or otherwise of supervision, but with supervision that is either faulty or weak. Various authors have stressed the importance of the education of supervisors. Erera and Lazar (1993) and Gregoire, Propp and Poertner (1998), cited in Botha (2000:5), are of the opinion that supervisors need additional knowledge and skills to become competent in supervision.
Simpson (2002), also cited in Simpson's (2001) study, found that supervisees in South Africa were dissatisfied with supervisors who were predominantly casework-orientated and who were supervising community workers whose training was more up to date and relevant. In South Africa, changing political and social conditions have seen the emergence of community work as a preferred method of intervention in many situations.
Social work supervision, which seeks to support and guide social workers in their professional development, must take into account this paradigm shift and refocus on the significance of community work intervention through a structured programme of supervision. The past apartheid training of existing supervisors also plays a role in the supervision provided being outdated, casework-orientated and inefficient. Many supervisors themselves have not been exposed to tertiary training in the new paradigm shift and
find themselves limited in supporting and guiding their supervisees in the new paradigm shift.
Contrary to the findings of Van Zyl and Botha (1997), Simpson (2001) cited in Simpson (2002) finds that social workers working in informal settlements found supervision "burdensome" because of inflexible demands. Simpson (2002) describes how supervisors "yelled" at social workers when their records were not up to date. Further, it was revealed that supportive supervision appeared to be lacking in practice. For most of the social workers in the study cited in Simpson (2002), supervision was not a source of support and encouragement. Many of the social workers in the same study expressed a great deal of anger and frustration at being expected to do work that their supervisors were not prepared to do. In the study, the respondents (South African social workers) "spoke of inviting their supervisors to community programmes and being told that they were too scared of being hijacked". One group of social workers in the study based in an informal settlement had no supervisor because the supervisors were too scared to enter the settlement (Simpson, 2002: 4). Clearly this indicates that supervision does not provide an effective supportive function, while social workers are criticised for their lack of commitment and low morale.
Supervision in South Africa seems unable to provide the psychological and interpersonal context that enables the worker to mobilise the emotional energy needed for effective job performance. Workers should leave supervision feeling motivated and enthusiastic about their work.
Acknowledging stressful situations and providing encouragement and support is another way of motivating workers.
Another consideration highlighted by Simpson (2002) was that supportive, administrative and educative supervision was simply not compatible. Adams (1998) study also highlights that many South African supervisors and supervisees have a limited understanding of the three functions of supervision, and that the three functions of supervision are not rated as
equally important. Adams (1998) argues that this is a short-sighted view which requires critical appraisal and attention before good supervisory and client-service practices can be established.
The researcher is of the opinion that the administrative, educative and supportive functions of supervision should be directed towards providing the environment in which workers can feel supported as they develop professionally. There is a considerable body of opinion that people perform best when they feel supported and appreciated. The question is whether social workers would confide their work-related difficulties to a supervisor who has the power to institute disciplinary measures against them or to deny them their promotion.
A study by Ross (1996:108) again elaborates perceptions of supervision in South Africa. The study on how South African social workers cope with occupational stress revealed that only 8,2% of the respondents in the sample used supervision in their agency as a stress-coping strategy.
Supervision was perceived to be only moderately beneficial to social workers who received supervision. Those respondents who utilised supervision as a stress management strategy maintained that sympathetic supervisors helped to support workers and diffuse stress. Effective supervision was perceived as enabling workers to ventilate and offload, and promote personal growth and professional development. In addition, respondents in the study maintained that well-read, well-qualified supervisors with good managerial skills could potentially invest their skills in the supervisees. These findings were consistent with the findings of Veeran and Moodley's (1994) study on stress and burnout among child care workers which indicated that supervision was found to be only moderately effective in helping the workers to de-stress and empowering them with coping strategies to deal with burnout.
In spite of recent opinions that supervision appeared to be unnecessary and should be separated from social work (Botha, 2000; Botha, 2001; Simpson, 2002), there are numerous pleas for the retention of supervision in social work practice. The retention of supervision was supported further by the SA Council for Social Service Professions (2002) in the Guideline Document of Service Condition and Human Resource Management in the Social Service Professions (2002). Emphasis was for departments/organisations to have a policy on supervision in place.
Within the South African context, social workers are clearly demoralised, frustrated and highly stressed (Van Rooyen, 1996; Ross, 1996; Ross, 1997). This is compounded by demands on social workers to participate meaningfully in the changing political-socio environment. Social work will therefore have to find ways and means of enhancing the standard of social work supervision and, consequently, also the standards of social work practice (Botha, 2001). According to Botha (2000) improving standards are not achieved accidentally, but have to be planned. Supervisors clearly need to develop skills in their education as regards administrative tasks, casework, group work, community work and community development.