5.4.6 Supervision

I am including Supervision in this Chapter on Training because I believe that supervision can be considered to be ongoing training.

Now I’m not going to assume that you know what supervision in the general area of helping people is, so I’ll describe it very briefly – because it is different from supervision in other areas of work.

For example, academic supervision is generally a checking of standards to ensure that a paper or publication for a major academic award is up to the exacting standard that academia demands.

Supervision in boat-building would involve an experienced crafts-person, following work done by me, checking my work to ensure that I had finished it not only to an acceptable level of competence, but offering me advice and guidance so that my boat-building skills would continually improve and I could build boats to higher standards in the future.

Virtually all the academic type supervision involves intellectual and writing skills, precision, proper formatting, organising, and structuring etc.  The boat-building supervision will encompass physical measurement, beauty, functionality and (of course) whether or not the finished product floats!  Even though in best case scenarios there will be meaningful dialogue and support, both lean towards the summative type assessment described above.

Neither directly concerns our emotional state. Supervision in helping people in distress, however, does involve our emotions.

Unlike the two examples above, where the finished product (or the work in progress) can actually be seen by the supervisor, very often, in the helping professions, the work is one step removed from the supervisor.

The work has to be brought by the practitioner to the supervision session – so, naturally it is filtered through the experience of the practitioner himself.  The supervisor must trust the practitioner to give as honest an appraisal as is possible for him so that the world of the person in distress can change for the better.

And, it needs to be remembered that while a practitioner is practicing his craft people are suffering – i.e. those who we are supervising are learning from others’ suffering!

To sum up, perhaps an analogy can be drawn between working with vulnerable people and parenting.  If we don’t have regular supervision to iron out difficulties we are like parents who assume that they know it all and never seek help or advice from anyone in the challenging task of bringing up children.

Many years ago I was at a child protection training day delivered by the Health Service Executive (HSE).  (In those days the HSE was in charge of child protection in Ireland – nowadays it is Túsla).

I asked a question about how external supervision might be helpful in the context of child protection.  I asked this because, when I set out on my career in child protection in 1990, I had been fortunate enough to have, as a mentor, a very forward thinking community leader from Southill in Limerick who saw the value in external supervision – and it had helped me enormously. Indeed, without it, I don’t think that I’d have lasted as long at the finger-on-the-pulse end of child protection.

Over those 30 years, I have not only avoided burnout, I actually have increased in freshness and enthusiasm.  I attribute this to my own interest in the field, a lot of good peer support, and regular external supervision with a supervisor who was/is empathic with the work that I am doing.

Anyway, getting back to my question, the person delivering the training, in her answer, was very emphatic about the role of supervision.

She said that it was done by line managers within the HSE to ensure cases were properly dealt with, child protection notifications were submitted properly, and that deadlines were met etc.  While the supervision on offer in the HSE was human, supportive and consistent, her opinion was that, in a situation where a child needed protection, external supervision was not only unnecessary, but dangerous.

It would be dangerous, she said, because an external person would not have the knowledge or expertise in child protection to judge whether or not a child was in danger.

Also the HSE would not then be in control – and what would happen if a child was not protected and someone sued the HSE, who would take responsibility?

In her answer there was no mention of burnout, vicarious trauma, distress, or on the other hand, trust, compassion, maintaining motivation, morale or hope.

That was, in fairness, a long time ago. I don’t know whether or not Túsla child protection staff have external supervision now – perhaps they have.

I mention it because is it not interesting that my mentor from Southill, who had no professional training in social care or social work, but was a man who was compassionate and far-seeing, appeared to be a good bit ahead of the highly-educated professionals in the Pillars in respect of what was good practice in child protection.

And I don’t think that external supervision is as yet standard practice among organisations that support people who have suffered trauma. I know of two voluntary organisations in this field where it is offered if staff experience a traumatic event – but if staff want to avail of regular supervision outside of that they have to pay for it themselves – and do it in their own time.

In those organisations, supervision is available in crisis situations, but there is no need of it when things are going well. What kind of message does this impart to staff?

If we look at supervision in the context of the root foundations, it is easy to see why it is of such value.

Of course, it needs to be accountable in respect of work done, contracts fulfilled, reporting concerns, etc. – but all this can be done within a confidential, good-will environment where the natural gifts of the person who is working are allowed emerge, their good ideas are listened to, they feel safe to be open about that which is challenging them, their uniqueness as workers, (i.e. their identity) is encouraged, and they feel cared for within a trusting relationship.

In this respect good supervision where people feel heard creates the conditions where an organisation can work through sometimes very difficult issues in real time.

When an unexpected event interrupts the normal day-to-day routine (that is, inducing chaos) regular supervision (whether structured, formal, or informal) allows people to process the chaos rather than default to some practice or protocol that might be fear-based and lacking the human response that would be far more beneficial in such a situation.

I believe that our work is enhanced by having an appreciation of the abstract.

What I mean by the abstract is the non-evident, that which we do not immediately see, what is under the surface or hidden, what might be implied from what is evident, or what we can imagine.

The abstract can be present in metaphor, simile and analogy.  It represents what is said rather than saying it explicitly.  It is also linked to creativity, play and emergence.

The abstract generally uses symbols rather than direct descriptions.  Something concrete (or definite) emerges from something symbolic or descriptive.

For example, a bit of carved wood can become a hurley, a bloated pigskin can become a ball, pieces of rectangular cardboard with diamonds and hearts can become playing cards.

Scientists, engineers, architects, poets and musicians all use the abstract and so can people building genuine relationships with those for whom relationships have been problematic, conditional or for whom intimacy has been fraught or associated with danger.

Having appreciation of the abstract opens us a much broader range of options.

This is important because firstly, helping people in distress is not one-size-fits-all, and secondly the existence of the complex variables described in the Chapter on Modalities.  Also, the systemic nature of the problems as described in the Chapter on Systems Theory demands a response that includes as many options as is possible.

Let us say, as an example; that a man is released from prison and wishes to go back and reconnect with his family.  It would not be untypical for a man in this position to expect that things will be the same when he comes home and that everyone will automatically adopt the same roles that they had prior to his imprisonment.  (I have known many situations where a practitioner has had to help resolve conflict in such cases).

If the practitioner thinks along the same tramlines as the Pillars often do, the work might involve parties coaching themselves to suppress their anger and other strong emotions in a kind of cognitive behavioural or conflict resolution time-limited course situation.

This may work well for many couples, but I know of many who have suffered deep trauma in their childhood (and often in adulthood too) for whom it does not work. 

Being creative in our approach, imagining something different, using outreach type methods of engagement, using what others might see as not of much use, taking sufficient time to allow what is dormant to emerge, modelling patience, compassion and tenacity, and encouraging both the man who has been released and his partner to process rather than rush to an immediate solution are all facets that we can bring to the work.

Appreciating the abstract can also allow us to factor in the many possible variables that are necessary in long-term strategic rather than short-term tactical planning. [1]

As well as formal training; I believe that supervision needs to be a safe enough environment for staff to creatively explore options that might seem, at first sight, foolish, off-the-wall, uncomfortable, a hunch, politically incorrect, or even a bit extreme. 

Many people in communities, wise people in extended families, are highly thought of by peers in the community, but because of the dominance of Pillars thinking as I described already, they are often side-lined by leaders rather than nurtured.

This side-lining often happens when leaders in the Pillars hear solutions that they deem to be impractical, or ideas that challenge the status quo being proposed. 

Supervision is a huge opportunity for learning and development of skills, and in particular the abstract, and through the abstract, creativity, innovation and appreciation of what is not surface-evident.

[1] The term strategic is generally used when we are talking about goals that we want to achieve that are far-reaching, and will effect permanent change. Tactical is often used to describe smaller steps that we take within the strategy.

There is a power difference in supervision [1]. Obviously, the supervisor is more powerful!

Or is she?

If we are practitioners it is important that we know how to make the most out of supervision, that we know the purpose of it, that it is a safe forum, what the boundaries around confidentiality are, and how it can sometimes be very challenging.

I believe that the same power dynamics that we wish for in families should prevail in the supervision relationship.

This is (as usual) easier said than done.

I already mentioned the debilitating effect of responsibility without power and I will revisit it here.  If we are supervisors we need to be able to listen so that we will be able to spot when a practitioner is beginning to feel powerless in her job.  Not every practitioner (particularly those who are young, or have a shy kind of disposition, or are new in the job) will be experienced or aware enough to spot responsibility without power creeping in and be confident or assertive enough to request change to rectify the situation [2].

It is probably too obvious to say it – but supervision should not be a place where the supervisor is always right!  The tendency to insist that we are right will often come from fear that our power-base will be threatened.  Yet supervision is also a place where the necessary authority vested in the supervisor by the organisation should and will be evident.  It is a forum where good use of power and authority, as well as risk taking can be modelled.

I wondered above who is the most powerful in supervision, the supervisor or supervisee?

It is true that a supervisee who is very knowledgeable and/or is blessed (or cursed – whichever way he looks at it) with a strong personality can often be more powerful, in some ways, than the supervisor. When I say more powerful I mean that he may be able to process thoughts faster, have better ideas, higher level of competence in certain areas and be more confident and self-assured.

Now, if you are perceptive, you will, of course, already have spotted that in such a case competition, or a power struggle might arise between supervisor and supervisee.

Such an atmosphere is not at all unusual in our work with people in distress and I believe that the most important thing for supervisors is to be aware enough to know when we are being challenged and we feel threatened – and then discern whether this is because we feel inadequate because we don’t know as much, hear ideas we hadn’t thought of, or have a light shone on our level of competence.

What I have just described is usually not easy for a supervisor to deal with, and requires that the supervisor also has a supportive, safe forum to explore both the roots of the issues (i.e. where the feelings originated) and how to deal with them in real time – so that supervision can be a collaborative effort which will have people in distress at its centre – not power dynamics and struggles between supervisor and supervisee.

[1]. The organisation Centre for Supervision and Team Development, based in London, England, has a well-thought out approach to the issues of power differences in supervision in the helping professions, and some of their material is available on their website. They also run courses, training days, webinars etc. for anyone interested.

[2]. This is why training within the organisation needs to focus quite a bit on power and power dynamics in organisations.