Several authors such as, Kaslow et al. (1997), Latting (1986), Lowy (1983) and White & Russell (1995), argue that there are numerous competing models of supervision in the helping profession, to the point of Rich (1993) even describing the field as a “supervisory jungle”.
However, according to Kadushin (1992a), Middleman & Rhodes (1995), Munson (1993) and White & Russell (1995 as cited in Tsui & Ho, 2008), there is no empirically grounded theory of social work supervision. Much of the theory has been borrowed initially from psychology and later on sociologists to describe, explain and predict the behaviour of the supervisor and the supervisee in the supervisory process. “Although none of the models focused solely on social work supervision, they provided insights into the conditions and components of a model of social work supervision” (Tsui & Ho 2008).
According to Munson (2002), and supported by Tsui (1997), there are 130 social work practice theories, but no consensus on which is most appropriate. The profession, therefore, uses numerous practice and supervision theories and models which express differing definitions of
50 their meanings, methods and purposes. Resulting in the “vagueness and complexity” of
‘supervision’, and interpretation of the term, ‘supervision model’ (Karpetis 2010).
Knowledge of Models are identified as fundamental to ethical practice, according to the Standards for Supervision (1990) and the curriculum Guide for Counselling Supervision (Borders et al. 1990) as cited in Leddick (2001)). Supervision is regarded as the construction of individualized learning plans for supervisees. The systematic manner in which supervision is applied is called a “model” (Leddick 2001).
According to Smith (2009) although clinical supervision started as an “apprenticeship”, this is not the case. Although counselling and supervision appear to have much in common, the two tasks are seen to utilize separate and distinct skills. It is also documented that clinical knowledge and skills are not easily transferrable as the apprenticeship model suggests. Whilst observation of the work is a useful training tool, it is seen as insufficient to provide students with the skills required to become skilled practitioners themselves. “Development is facilitated when the supervisee engages in reflection on the counselling work, relationship and the supervision itself”
Smith (2009). Thus supervision is recognized as a complex exchange between supervisor and supervisee, with supervisory models/theories developed to provide a frame for it.
Engelbrecht (2006), Leddick (2001), Smith (2009) and Tsui & Ho (2008) write about the different types of models. They refer to:
Psychotherapy-based supervision model: Psychodynamic approach, Feminist model, Cognitive-behavioural and Person-centred are all models of supervision guided by the underpinning theoretical orientation informing the observation and selection of data for discussion in supervision as well as the meaning and relevance of the data.
Developmental model: is aimed at developing strengths and identifying areas for growth, working towards competence, motivation, awareness and autonomy. This model defines progressive stages of supervisee development from novice to expert, where each stage consists of discrete characteristics and skills. A supervisee’s progression to the next stage is assisted by the supervisor’s ability to accurately identify the supervisee’s stage of development and provide
51 feedback and support through the use of interactive processes. (The models used in this study, a Model for Practice and the Seven-Eyed Supervision Model, are developmental models).
Integrative model of supervision relies on more than one theory or technique and is widely practiced due to counsellors adopting more integrative counselling methods.
Agency model reflects the structure of the agency and reflects on the different levels of accountability and professional autonomy within the agency, such as the casework supervision model, group supervision model, peer supervision model, team service delivery model and autonomous practice model.
Having reviewed the various models and approaches to supervision Tsui (1997) proposed a model that stresses the importance of the interactional relationship between the supervisor and supervisee as the core of supervision.
Tsui (1997) conceptualizes social work supervision into the following three approaches:
The Normative Approach (which seeks to identify a norm or standard, and asks the questions,
“what should supervision be” and “what should the supervisor do”, The Empirical Approach which asks the question, “what does the supervisor do?” and tries to answer this by collecting empirical data about the roles and behaviour of social work supervisors, and finally The Pragmatic Approach which aims to provide guidelines for a supervisor that is interested in the functions and tasks of social work supervision in order to identify its nature and characteristics.
According to Dechert (1965) and Galt & Smith (1976) as cited in Tsui & Ho (2008), a model is a simplified picture which serves to explain and understanding reality. Sergiovanni (1993), as cited in Tsui & Ho (2008), suggests that in developing models the focus should be on the reality of the context, the ideal, the components and the action guidelines for supervisors. Models add clarity to the supervisory process: they should be easy to implement, more flexible and specific than theories. A model of supervision can be just a package of interrelated ideas or techniques that are useful in the practice of supervision.
“In supervisory practice, models can serve as a common language between the supervisor and supervisee. It is possible for a supervisor to learn how to supervise through imitation or by “trial
52 and error”, however without a model he/she might not understand the process of supervision in a holistic manner” (Tsui & Ho 2008).
In constructing a model for supervision the authors, Tsui & Ho (2008), used as their philosophical base the ideals and beliefs of supervisors and identified seven underlying principles that govern model of supervision building.
1. It is an interpersonal transaction between two or more persons, where the more experienced and competent supervisor helps the supervisee thus ensuring the quality of service to the client.
2. Through the supervisor the supervisee’s work must be related to the agency objectives.
3. There is a use of authority, exchange of information, and an expression of emotion in this interpersonal transaction.
4. Supervision indirectly reflects the professional values of social work
5. The supervisor monitor’s job performance teaches knowledge and skills and provides emotional support to the supervisee.
6. Supervisory effectiveness is evaluated through staff satisfaction with supervision, job accomplishments and client outcomes.
7. Supervision involves four parties, the agency, the supervisor, the supervisee and the client.
The authors state all of them are strongly influenced by the context of supervision, that is, the prevailing culture. (Tsui & Ho 2008)
According to Tsui (2005), the most mentioned models in social work are the individual and group supervision models. Both entail scheduled meetings between supervisor and supervisee where the aim is to teach professional skills to advance the supervisee’s understanding of his/her professional self, of the clients and of the services offered. The focus is on the relationship between the supervisor and supervisee, which consists of three major components, the supervisory contract, the choice of format for supervision, and a development process with different stages. The contract focuses on the goals, expectations and tasks, with each party understanding the roles and responsibilities, and secondly to evaluate the supervisee’s progress towards meeting the requirements of field practice , successful course completion and ultimately
53 graduation (Karpetis 2010); whilst the responsibility of the supervisor is the protection of the client’s interest (Page & Wosket, (2001) as cited in Karpetis (2010).
According to Tsui & Ho (2008), “a supervisory contract serves as a plan, an agreement and standard for evaluation”. Karpetis (2010) looks at the aspect of assessment in social work, as a key focus of supervision, a process and a prerequisite for planning and conducting interventions with clients. Assessment is, therefore, a critical aspect in the supervision process which aids in determining a suitable plan of action and intervention. The process includes what is referred to as
’reflective practice’, a process of reflection upon professional practice that leads to practice improvement. The supervisor’s stance and practice is seen to be influenced by his training and professional experience.