Abstract
This article reports on the findings of a mixed-method study exploring the experiences of supervision within Australian social work. It looks particularly at the ways in which organisational cultures support supervision as a mechanism of practice improvement. The research suggests the need to better understand performance within the practice and supervision sphere, and create ways in which workers can be acknowledged to develop their skills in a supportive organisational environment. It argues that within a neoliberal context, supervision has the potential to assist in the management of competing workplace demands.
Introduction
Organisational culture has been defined as the whole of traditions, values, attitudes, work practices and policies that constitute an ‘all encompassing context in which the work of the organisations is carried out’ (Hawkins and Shohet, 2000: 45). Oşvat et al. (2014) note that organisational culture powerfully influences the ways in which workers perceive themselves and their role within an organisational context. Hawkins and Shohet (2000) provide a typology that delineates the impact of work culture, and particularly dysfunctional work culture, on the supervisory climate. They described the optimal culture as a ‘learning and development culture’ (p. 137) in which there is a high degree of congruence among organisational policies, staff development goals and the actual day-to-day practices which impact staff. Whether the rhetoric matches the practice of the organisational culture remains an important question in the contemporary practice environment, particularly in the context of pragmatic concerns about productivity and competence (Davys and Beddoe, 2010; Peach and Horner, 2007; Stanley and Goddard, 2002).
This article reports on the findings of a study that explores the experiences of social work supervision within Australian social work. It looks particularly at the ways in which organisational cultures support supervision as an important mechanism of professional development and practice improvement. It is clear that the influence of an organisational culture adds an integral layer to the complexity of the supervisory relationship. Research undertaken by Falvey (2002) revealed that, ‘although seldom addressed in the literature, the reality for many practicing supervisors is that their employers fail to consistently provide the time or resources to conduct competent supervision’ (p. 73).
Discussion in the literature suggests a link between supervision policy, managerial accountability and professional requirements in social work. In a neoliberal environment, policies, standards and protocols have been linked to the quality of service provision. What was rendered practical in policy then shapes and potentially limits the parameters for action with the service user, in particular to avoid legal consequences (Jones, 2004; Reamer, 2003; Webb, 2006). The prospect of legal, professional or organisational sanctions, if failing to follow designated steps, has affected how practice is monitored. The reductionism of competency-based policy in agencies risks breaking practice into small constituent parts, which may not represent the nature of the day-to-day work or be influenced by the service user’s presenting needs (Lewis, 1998). In the North American context, the literature suggests that supervision policies and procedures have eroded practitioners’ autonomy and prerogatives. These policies served organisational economic interests ahead of satisfactory service user outcomes (Egan and Kadushin, 2004; Falvey, 2002; Kadushin and Harkness, 2002; Munson, 1998b). Within this context, supervisors are caught between regulation policies regarding the day-to-day decisions about resource allocation, while exercising professional principles (Havassy, 1990; Kadushin and Harkness, 2002; Munson, 2002). In Britain, Phillipson (2002) noted a similar dynamic where ‘policies and rituals can be designed to contain and shrink the complexities and tensions and maybe mirrors social work with its concern to manage risk’ (p. 194). The development of supervision contracts has thus become the tool whereby policies are translated into practice.
Methodology
An online survey was undertaken to collect descriptive data about social work supervision practice in Australia. Survey research uses a cross sectional research design whereby data are collected, in this case online, enabling completion by multiple participants at one point in time across Australia. The approach aimed to collect a body of quantitative data using multiple variables which were then examined to detect patterns of association (Bryman, 2004; Monette et al., 1986). One of the strengths in online survey research is flexibility in gaining high response rates and thus increasing the justification for making generalisations about the population (Monette et al., 1986).
In all, 675 participants completed the online surveys; 199 (29%) identified as supervisors. These supervisors responded to both the supervisor and supervisee sections of the survey.
Demographics of sample
The survey questions 1–12 related to the demographics of the survey respondents. The majority of respondents were women (84.5%). The age range was reasonably spread across the ages 20–59, and under 5% of respondents were aged 60+ (Figure 1).
Age demographics.
In terms of ethnicity, the large majority of respondents identified as Australian (76%). The next largest ethnic groups were those identifying as broadly European comprising Irish, Scottish, Welsh and European (13%). The remaining respondents (9%) were from culturally diverse backgrounds and Indigenous Australian respondents (just under 2%).
Educationally, over half of the respondents had undergraduate degrees (56.7%), and 41.7% had postgraduate qualifications. In terms of where the respondents worked, they were asked their field of practice (Figure 2). The majority were full-time workers (78%), and 69 per cent had been in their role between one and five years.
Employment sector.
Beyond demographics, the survey also included questions relating to structure of supervision, content of supervision sessions, organisational culture, models of supervision used, supervisory relationships and perceived effectiveness of supervision. There was an additional section in the survey specifically directed to supervisors. This included questions relating to the number of supervisees they provided supervision for, and a number of questions relating to their training as a supervisor. The process of data analysis involved six major activities as outlined by Sarantakos (2005). These included data preparation, counting, grouping, relating, predicting and statistical testing. The data were entered into SPSS 16 for analysis and a cross check was undertaken to ensure accuracy.
Open-ended questions within the survey also enabled a qualitative analysis of textual data (180 pages). These data were analysed using thematic analysis initially and confirmed by NVivo 7 to ensure all online survey quotes were included (QSR International, 2006). The thematic analysis was undertaken to identify patterns and themes from the text produced by the online survey participants (Bryman, 2004; Neuman, 2006; Rubin and Babbie, 2008). There were several steps to the qualitative analysis, including transcription of online survey text, analysis and interpretation, generalisation, and verification of findings.
After reviewing the responses, the questions were categorised according to question content. For example, data pertaining to the benefits of supervision for service users were coded under one theme, ‘benefits of supervision for service users’, and subsequent questions under separate themes, for example ‘benefits of supervision for organisation’ and ‘benefits of supervision for the worker’. From specific comments, sub themes were identified such as accountability of practice. This subtheme included comments such as ‘quality of service’, ‘Professional and personal accountability for actions is key’ and ‘a degree of accountability in the service they are receiving’. A further subtheme under ‘benefits of supervision for clients’ was supervisory relationships with variations under the subtheme indicating comments regarding both positive and negative relationships, for example ‘Great if the relationship is good’.
From the thematic analysis a number of categories were identified. The data were then entered into NVivo to recode the initial thematic analysis and to ensure relevant data were not overlooked (Ozkan, 2004). The initial analysis of text data from the online survey informed the focus group interview schedule. Ethics approval for this research was granted by the Victoria University Ethics Committee (Melbourne Victoria).
Findings
The results from the online survey and the qualitative data generated from the survey text responses are now explored in the context of the following four themes:
Supervision in Australia;
Organisational support for supervision;
Supervision within an organisational hierarchy;
Performance appraisal and supervision effectiveness.
Supervision in Australia
The majority of survey respondents (75.1%, n = 507) identified as receiving some kind of supervision. Individual supervision provided by the organisation was the most common type (71.9%). Peer supervision provided within the organisation (17.9%) was the second most common type of supervision followed by 9 per cent of respondents who paid for individual external supervision. For the others, 6.2 per cent reported receiving individual supervision, external to the organisation and paid for by the organisation; 5.9 per cent received facilitated group supervision provided internally within the organisation; and 4.4 per cent received peer supervision provided externally to the organisation. The least common types of supervision reported were student or fieldwork placements (2.5%), and 0.7 per cent of respondents had facilitated group supervision provided by a supervisor external to the organisation, which they paid for.
For those survey respondents receiving more than one type of supervision, 46.5 per cent indicated internal individual supervision was the most useful, leaving over half of the respondents finding alternative supervision types more useful. ‘Peer supervision provided within my organization’ was considered the most useful alternative process (15.1%) followed by ‘individual external’ (7.6%), and 11 per cent of respondents had external individual supervision which they paid for. An open category was included in this question to allow respondents to identify other types of useful supervision, but respondents chose to write about supervision that was not useful for them. There were 30 survey text responses, many of which were from respondents receiving only internal supervision, with all but one indicating that their internal supervision experience was not useful. Rosa, from the private not-for-profit sector, and Christina from a non-governmental organisation (NGO) provided typical examples of the kind of text responses received:
I don’t find individual supervision provided within your [my] organization useful, it is focused on reporting, not me. (Rosa: 402) Supervision is not satisfying, rather frustrating and [a form of] surveillance. (Christina: 658)
Respondents to the survey were asked to identify the frequency and length of supervision sessions. The frequency of supervision was quite varied (Figure 3). A small percentage of respondents received supervision weekly (7%) and just over one-quarter received supervision fortnightly (28%). About a third (34%) of respondents identified that they had supervision once a month and a small percentage received supervision four times a year (4%). The remaining respondents (27%) indicated that supervision occurred sporadically. In terms of length of supervision sessions, considerable difference was also evident. A small percentage (8.9%) indicated their supervision sessions lasted less than 30 minutes, nearly half (48.4%) identified that their supervision sessions lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, about one-third (34.7%) indicated length of supervision to be between 60 and 90 minutes and a small percentage (8%) indicated their session went beyond 90 minutes. One might suspect that those who received longer supervision sessions might have supervision less frequently and those who have briefer sessions had them more often. The correlation was in this direction and significant but not strong (r = −.18, p < .010).
Frequency of supervision.
The tri functions of supervision – administration, support and education – underpin most of the literature informing social work supervision practice locally and internationally. The survey provided respondents with a list of supervision functions to choose from, including clinical (relating to the supervisees’ clinical practice and skill development), administrative (including compliance and systems monitoring), supportive, professional development (which may include development of clinical skills, but may also include other areas of development, for example courses to increase awareness of domestic violence, drugs and alcohol, etc.), educative, professional registration (where the worker is required to comply with external monitoring systems) and interpersonal/team issues which represented different ways of describing these functions. The functions of supervision identified in order of highest to lowest frequency were supportive (64%), clinical (61%), professional development (52%), administrative (50%), interpersonal/team (37%), educative (34%) and professional registration (3%). This variation across results indicated multiple functions of supervision with most focus on the functions of support, clinical, professional development and administrative. These findings were consistent with the three main functions of administration, support and education as identified by Kadushin (1992).
Supervisors were also asked about the type of method they used in supervision to discuss practice. About one-third (32.9%) of supervisors reported that they relied on supervisee case notes, 20.3% used analysis of critical moments and 19.6% used supervisee process recordings with the remainder using other methods.
Organisational support for supervision
Just over three-quarters of respondents (76.7%) identified that their employing organisation had a policy on supervision. The remaining respondents (12.7%) identified that there was no supervision policy. A further 10.6% were unaware whether the organisation had a policy. The survey results indicate that there has been an increase in the use of supervision policy in Australia compared to three decades earlier, when ‘only two out of five respondents’ agencies had a supervision policy’ (Pilcher, 1984: 37).
Standards set by the Australian Association for Social Workers (AASW, 2014: 2) maintain that ‘professional supervision (is) central to the maintenance of best practice’, and the inclusion of supervision in job descriptions can be seen as evidence of an organisational commitment to providing professional supervision. In this research, three-quarters (75.5%) of respondents identified that supervision was an expectation of their job and was included in their current job description. Just over 18% reported that supervision was not an expectation, and 6% of respondents did not know whether supervision was expected. There was a significant association between sector and whether supervision was part of the job description. Federal and state government organisations were more likely to have supervision as part of a job description than participants from non-government organisations (χ2 = 25.302; df = 4, p < .001). Hence, the data provided evidence that supervision was certainly identified as part of job descriptions; however, they were more prevalent in some sectors than others. Such differences require further examination to appreciate their place in the current context of supervision practice.
Respondents were asked whether they had difficulty accessing supervision. Essentially, three in every five respondents (62%) reported no difficulties in accessing supervision, leaving two in every five reporting difficulties (38%). Respondents were asked to identify from a list of contributing factors. The list included cost, time, inability to access appropriate expertise, no supervision provided by the organisation, and supervision not encouraged or valued in the organisation. For the 223 respondents who reported difficulties accessing supervision, 22.2% identified time constraints as the main contributing factor. The analysis indicated a significant association (χ2 = 11.029; df = 2, p < .004) between difficulty accessing supervision and geographical location. This suggested that respondents who had difficulty accessing supervision were more likely to live in regional areas. Lottie, employed in the statutory sector located in a regional centre, noted in the survey text:
We have evaluated the supervision offered in the agency, which included access to external supervision, but is little used. Living in a regional centre limits access to people with suitable expertise. (Lottie: 429)
Such difficulty demonstrates an organisation’s dilemma in offering group, peer or other types of supervision for workers across large geographical distances. While the AASW Standards identify the centrality of supervision to social work practice, this research illustrates difficulties in access to supervision, similar to those identified in Cooper and Anglem’s (2003) research. In 2014, the AASW revised its Supervision Standards, noting that they also relate to supervision that is accessed via remote technology. Whether this creates improved access to supervision for workers in regional/remote communities will require further examination.
In terms of supervision training, one-third (32.3%) of supervisors indicated that their highest level of supervision training was provided within their organisation. A smaller percentage (5.6%) of supervisors indicated they had accessed supervision training through technical and further education (TAFE) or higher education. About a quarter (24.1%) of supervisors had undertaken supervision training within the previous 12 months. These findings are consistent with limited access to supervision-specific courses available throughout Australia. The results contrast with O’Donoghue et al. (2005) research. New Zealand offers specific training at both certificate and diploma levels in supervision courses, of which about half (50.2%) of New Zealand respondents had undertaken.
Becky, from a non-statutory organisation, offers some suggestions about the ways in which supervision training can help supervisors keep their supervisees on track:
They (supervisors) need resources to help them keep their supervision style/mode fresh. Training would be [a] round keeping current with different ways to approach supervision: i.e.: reflection/critical reflection/professional identity building/a mix of things: so supervision doesn’t just fall into the ‘another meeting’ category. (Becky: 434)
A lack of supervision training remains a problem in Australia. This is concerning in the light of Canadian research suggesting that ‘most effective supervision comes from persons who have successfully completed courses in supervision’ (Hair, 2013: 1578).
Supervision within an organisational hierarchy
Survey respondents reported on the position of their supervisor within the organisation. Respondents were asked to identify their supervisor’s role in their employing organisation, and whether it was internal or external to their organisation. Over half of the respondents (63%) identified their supervisor as internal to their team, 22% as external to their team and 15% as external to their organisation. Respondents were asked whether their principal supervisor was also their line manager and 67.4% of respondents indicated this was the case. For those respondents who received individual internal supervision, 81.2% were supervised by their line manager. The analysis indicates a statistically significant association (χ2 = 52.587; df = 4, p < .001) between principal supervisor as line manager and employer, indicating that those respondents employed within the government had a higher proportion of supervisors as line managers compared to those working in other organisations.
The literature identifies the potential tensions generated when line management is substituted for supervision (Baglow, 2009; Beddoe, 2010; Cooper and Anglem, 2003; Jones, 2004; Morrell, 2001; Ungar, 2006). The data in this research provide some preliminary evidence that most respondents in this sample were being supervised by their line manager and that this was occurring differentially across human service organisations. Findings identify both the limitations and opportunities when the line manager and the supervisor are the same person. For example, the limitations were summarised by Libby from the statutory sector:
A supervision relationship with a line manager is a different dynamic entirely: if the relationship with the line manager is poor then professional supervision suffers. (Libby: 421)
This hierarchical dynamic suggests a difference when being supervised by a line manager. In contrast, Felicity, another respondent from the statutory sector, identified the benefits of having the line manager present in peer supervision:
Peer supervision is very important within the organisation, because formal one-to-one supervision with my supervisor/line manager doesn’t occur more than once a year. Having this person also attend peer supervision sessions is a benefit in terms of senior social workers and our line manager being together to resolve any issues that arise, and being able to deal with them. (Felicity: 193)
The literature suggests that the neoliberal context has seen an increase in line management focus at the cost of professional supervisory functions (Baglow, 2009; Beddoe, 2010), raising the potential for role blurring when the line manager is the supervisor and where the line management focus is the dominant function of supervision. This research raises similar issues.
The literature indicates that supervision contracts have a central place in the supervisory experience. Supervision contracts serve as a structural feature with powerful ethical implications, potentially neutralising abuse from the supervisor (Gillanders, 2005), and helping to clarify and manage organisational hierarchies. The language of the contract provides firm boundaries around accountability and consequences in supervision. Data from this research detailed that verbal supervision contracts were in place for 42.5% of respondents and written ones were in place for 22.9%. Respondents to the survey were asked who developed their supervision contract. Just over 71.2% reported that their supervision contract was jointly developed between themselves and their supervisor and 14.2% reported that it was developed by the organisation. Referring to the supervisory contract, respondents were asked: if their supervisor was not their line manager, had the contract been discussed with their line manager? Sixty seven per cent (66.7%) of respondents did not know whether their supervision contract had been discussed with their line manager. The survey included a question about how often their supervision contract was reviewed. Forty per cent (40.1%) of respondents identified that their supervision contract was never reviewed, and 28.2% indicated an annual review.
Performance appraisal and supervision effectiveness
Survey respondents were asked whether feedback from their supervisor was linked to their work performance appraisal. Over half of the respondents (50.4%) said feedback from their supervisor was linked, and 28% indicated it was not linked to their performance appraisal. In trying to understand whether there were patterns across the performance appraisal data, the only statistically significant difference was by sector (χ2 = 89.59; df = 8, p < .001), with respondents from the statutory organisations being more likely to indicate that feedback was linked to their performance appraisal than others. These results resonate with the literature reviewed about the growth of compliance procedures, in this case performance appraisals, particularly in statutory organisations (Evans, 1990; Waters, 1992). The literature suggests that the relationship between supervisor and supervisee will affect the supervisor’s ability to evaluate job performance accurately (Grasso, 1994; Himle et al., 1989). Research indicates that the use of positional power by the supervisor during supervision can create resistance and the adoption of control tactics by the supervisee, and reduce the effectiveness of supervision (Leung, 2012). Furthermore, supervisees may compromise their professional future with potential for exploitation of private knowledge divulged to the supervisor in supervision (Neufeldt and Nelson, 1999). External pressures, such as organisational policy change, can affect the way performance reviews are conducted and the types of standards used in performance reviews. The context raises questions about the potential impact of linking performance appraisal to supervision. A total of 12 survey respondents made additional text comments on this connection in the survey. Giselle, from the statutory sector, represented these views, when speaking about her experience of the coupling of supervision and performance review:
Technically supervision should be 2 x year and it’s not supposed to be linked to performance appraisal
Supervisors were also asked to provide a rating on their effectiveness as a supervisor on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represented not effective and five represented highly effective. Only 8% reported they were highly effective, with the majority reporting a value of 3, indicative of average effectiveness. A small percentage (4.8%) reported a value of 2, indicative of low effectiveness. Following a similar theme, they were also asked to indicate how their supervisee would rate them on a comparable effectiveness scale. A comparison of means (paired t-test) found that supervisors believe their supervisees would rate them as more effective (M = 3.58, SD = 0.79) compared to self-reporting (M = 3.42, SD = 0.72) (t(223) = 4.362, p < .001).
Twenty-six per cent of respondents reported that their supervision was not effective or minimally effective. Analysis of the two variables identified a significant strong positive relationship between level of trust in the supervisory relationship and perceived effectiveness of supervision (r = 0.81, p = .001). The more trust evident in the supervisory relationship, the higher the reported effectiveness, and vice versa: the lower the trust, the lower the perceived effectiveness of the supervisory relationship.
Supervisors were asked about the type of method they used in supervision. About one-third (32.9%) of supervisors reported that they relied on supervisee case notes; 20.3% used analysis of critical moments; 19.6% used supervisee process recordings, with the remainder using other methods. This indicates that most supervisors relied on supervisee self-report to assess performance.
Discussion
This study is the first of its kind in Australia, providing baseline information about social work supervision. Nearly 700 social workers responded to the online survey, suggesting supervision is a subject of high interest in the current environment.
The research suggests the need to better understand performance within the practice and supervision sphere, and create ways in which workers can be acknowledged to develop their skills in a supportive organisational environment. The method supervisors use to discuss practice with supervisees provides evidence about the rigour used to extend practice skills and knowledge in supervision. It would seem that in general Australian supervisors rely on supervisee case notes and practitioner self-report to scrutinise and assess practice effectiveness. This is supported in the international literature (Ladany and Muse-Burke, 2001). While the analysis of practice in the supervision context, and the use of process recordings, are important in the light of supervision being a potential site for critical reflection, they are, nevertheless, reports of the practitioner’s own practice, which may or may not reflect the reality or the experience of the service user. The greater use of case notes within this study may reflect a stronger focus on organisational auditing requirements to ensure quality standards are met. The dominance of self-reporting as a means of understanding performance has been raised as a concern in previous research (Ladany and Muse-Burke, 2001) and the current study adds further to this concern in the context of Australian social work. While mechanisms of self-report will always be an aspect of supervision, there is nevertheless a need to increase the rigour of supervision beyond the accounts of the practitioner.
Throughout the processes of social work education and training, social work students become accustomed to having their practice observed by educators in the classroom and in their social work placements. Watching skilled practitioners in action, having the opportunity to practice skills, and demonstrating skill development through recordings is common practice in schools of social work. Yet once training is complete, practice tends to shift into the private domain of practitioner and client. The worker then becomes the key reporter of what took place in the practice encounter, and how well the practitioner supported positive practice outcomes.
There are a number of opportunities that have the potential to increase the rigour of performance monitoring in supervision. Supervisors are clearly able to attend interviews with clients, creating the potential for both modelling of skills by the supervisor and observing the practitioners practice skills in action. In this situation the supervisor would particularly focus on practitioner skill acquisition, facilitating post-interview discussion and feedback. This could be mirrored by similar processes of observed supervision practice where a senior practitioner observes and provides feedback to supervisors on their supervision skill development (Connolly and Morris, 2012). There are, of course, other ways of creating observed practice opportunities through the occasional recording of practice interviews from time to time for later examination and reflection.
An important source of information to better understand practitioner skill development, helpfulness and general quality of practice is service-user feedback. Asking service users about worker performance has been variously picked up by agencies over the years, particularly in the context of medical social work where service-user surveys are common practice. However, such opinions tend to provide feedback on broader service satisfaction rather than commenting on factors that would help to understand practitioner performance. More in-depth analysis of practitioner performance through the application of a specifically designed survey, or occasional post-service interview, could assist in providing the kind of feedback that would be meaningful in terms of worker skill development.
Perhaps inevitably, the increased pressure upon services in response to contemporary demands has an impact upon workers and their supervisors providing frontline services. The findings of this research suggest that external supervision could play a valuable role in augmenting line management arrangements. For example, external supervision can provide specialised expertise when needed. Closer examination of the use, value and place of different types of supervision, including external supervision, with specific investigation into the contractual arrangements could assist organisations in meeting their obligations to staff.
It is clear from the findings that impact on the delivery and experience of supervision is influenced by sector. Perhaps not surprisingly, the statutory sector in particular has been found to be most challenging. Reviewing how supervision is provided within statutory services would expose where different types of supervision arrangements are working well, while also highlighting where supervision is not meeting the needs of staff. Such reviews would ultimately enhance future service provision.
The respondents to the survey indicated that peer supervision within the organisation was considered to be useful – second only to individual supervision. Yet peer supervision is not adopted very often in the Australian context – only 5.9% of respondents received peer supervision in this study. Given the increasingly pressured practice environments, there may be benefit in widening the frame of supervisory opportunities to better utilise the experience of senior practitioners who could provide peer supervision outside of the line management arrangement. Interestingly, a Canadian study found that 25% of respondents believed that supervision needed to be time-limited, after which a social worker might be expected to work as an independent and autonomous practitioner:
Supporters of time-limited supervision shared the idea that once practice-focused supervision ends, peer consultation becomes a viable replacement. (Hair, 2013: 1577)
Harnessing the skill and expertise of these senior employees could then augment the support and developmental functions of supervision that are sometimes compromised within line management arrangements. Rethinking ways in which supervision can be provided has the potential to create opportunities for strengthening the professional discourses within agencies. This rethinking could incorporate established supervisory opportunities, including peer supervision groups or cross-team and – disciplinary supervision groups. These possibilities were supported by participants within this research.
The structure and training requirements for providing supervision are integral to the professionalisation process of social workers. It is clear from this research that the lack of supervision training resources and programmes remains a problem for Australian social workers. Historically, supervision training has featured as a requirement for practising social work. As such, it is an integral part of regulation requirements in the neoliberal context. British legislation ties supervision training to ongoing registration requirements for social workers (Welbourne et al., 2007). Similarly, in North America (Reamer, 1995) social workers require training for ongoing licensing as does the registration of New Zealand social workers (O’Donoghue, 2000). The findings from this research attest to extremely low levels of engagement by social workers with supervision training and education opportunities, with current standards not being met by supervisors in the field. Without regulation Australian social workers do not have the statutory framework to mandate the requirement for ongoing professional development in this area. The results from this study are disappointing, as they reflect earlier Australian research (Pilcher, 1984). Pilcher noted the lack of supervision training more than three decades ago, and it would seem that little has changed since that time. The current Australian results stand in contrast to the results generated by New Zealand research (O’Donoghue et al., 2005) where it was found that the vast majority of participants had undergone supervision training.
While the availability of supervision training is clearly important, the translation of training knowledge into practice is of equal importance. Accessing training does not necessarily result in positive practice change. Without a mechanism through which training insights and new ideas can be engaged meaningfully in day-to-day practice, the full benefit of investment in training is unlikely to be realised. It could be argued that developing opportunities that integrate knowledge acquisition and practice application is likely to be more successful in strengthening practice over time. This inevitably requires organisational commitment to creating learning environments that extend beyond the approval of course attendance alone. Whether access to supervision training remains a priority for organisations is unclear from the research findings of this study. Participants, however, certainly identified that organisations have a role to play in ensuring their supervisors are well prepared and fit to supervise.
Related to practice quality, this research found an increase in supervision infrastructure including policies, contracts, performance reviews and job descriptions. These findings provide new evidence about the increase in compliance measures from earlier research (Pilcher, 1984). Nearly three-quarters of participants belonged to organisations with supervision policies. Those from statutory organisations were more likely than other sectors to have supervision policies. Evidence in the research suggested a need for standardisation of content in supervision policies and documentation, regardless of the nature of supervision relationships across different sectors and organisations. The data did not, however, shed light on whether the development of these more regulated expectations, or indeed the increase in compliance more generally, was resulting in more effective supervision practice. Critics in the literature warn against assuming that organisations with formal supervision policies automatically translate into more satisfying or productive supervision experiences (Cousins, 2004; Scott and Farrow, 1993). The advent of managerialism has seen a greater focus on organisational monitoring in supervision, with less emphasis on the support and educational imperatives (Beddoe, 2010; Davys, 2007; Jones, 2004; Morrison, 2001). This trend was also clearly indicated in the findings of this research. It is nevertheless the support and educational dimensions of supervision that have potential to facilitate the kind of reflective practice opportunities that can impact positively on practice interventions, and therefore client outcomes. Such data provide the impetus for organisations to explore ways of balancing compliance and monitoring expectations with a stronger emphasis on the professional dimensions of supervision.
The neoliberal context in North America has led to increased practitioner stress and burnout, increased incidents of violence against social workers and greater claims of unethical practice (Havassy, 1990; Munson, 1998b). Munson (1998a) argues that increased violent incidents against social workers have resulted from more stringent service eligibility criteria. An increase in violent incidents against social workers has also been identified in the Australian context (Koritsas et al., 2010; Stanley and Goddard, 2002). In a qualitative study undertaken by Kapoulitsas and Corcoran (2015: 98), the researchers found that ‘a supportive work environment and positive supervision played a pivotal role in shaping what accounted for resilience amongst participants’, a finding also supported by research undertaken in New Zealand (Beddoe et al., 2014). Supervision provides the space for debriefing and support after traumatic or unsettling experiences. Indeed, Oşvat et al. (2014) argue that ‘supervision holds a special place in preventing burnout’. Participants in the research identified the importance of a supportive supervisory relationship to deal with the stressful nature of social work. Access to supervision assists staff to deal with the emotional impact of the work and creates the organisational framework within which staff can be supported. From an organisational point of view, the provision of professional supervision has the potential to reduce sick leave, and in the words of some respondents, organisations would have ‘less work cover claims and greater retention of staff’. Effective supervision, therefore, becomes an antidote to the effects of stressful work environments, creating access to a clear pathway of support.
From the early 1990s in North America, social workers were being advised to focus on potential liability issues within the supervisory relationship at a time when malpractice suits against supervisors by individual workers, alleging discrimination or wrongdoing, had occurred (Reamer, 1995, 2003). Licensed mental health professionals and supervisors were more at risk of legal exposure because of inadequate or lack of supervision opportunities, despite the existence of guidelines that made the lack of supervision unethical (Reamer, 1995). Participants in this study identified that they were more readily blamed for negative practice outcomes within the workplace. In this context, supervision plays an integral role in shaping industrial relations within the workplace, specifically in relation to legal problems and working conditions. Participants acknowledged that their working environment was increasingly influenced by risk management, a ‘shame and blame organisational culture’, which had ‘disastrous effects on front line staff and service users’. Where there was a problem with service delivery, there was a problem for them as practitioners. The increased sense of surveillance supervision and corresponding lack of a supportive workplace culture raised questions for participants in terms of the sustainability of current employment conditions.
Litigation against supervisors in the North American neoliberal environment of human services provides a salient caution for Australian social work. The Australian social work registration debate and increasing public scrutiny of statutory practice certainly has implications with respect to this. Such shifts place the process of supervision at the nexus of worker performance and public accountability. Within this context, it would seem to be in the legal interests of organisations to consider the benefits of supervision in creating a healthy workplace culture. Although not necessarily the best driver for change, liability can have an impact where other imperatives struggle to gain traction.
Issues that impact the health, safety and wellbeing of workers are important to the recruitment and retention of staff. Agencies that demonstrate their commitment to staff support through an investment in supervision have the potential to create the kind of supportive organisational conditions that will both attract and retain good professional staff. The provision of supervision alone, however, is not necessarily enough to create a supportive organisational culture. Dominant discourses informing supervision can have a powerful influence on the way it is received by the supervisee. In this regard, the balancing of managerial and professional discourse becomes important.
Historically, in social work, the conflict between the recognition of social workers’ industrial rights and the expectation of workers’ vocational commitment to service delivery has often weakened the working conditions for social workers (Healy, 2004). Participants in this research identified that they were ‘clearly not in social work for the money’, but were in social work for the satisfaction they gained from the work. Many believed that without professional supervision this satisfaction was compromised. A recent English study of supervision cautiously suggests that frequent, good-quality supervision can provide workers with ‘greater confidence in managing and prioritizing workloads, engagement with the job and perceptions that their professional practice is improved’ (Manthorpe et al., 2015: 64). Given the potential benefits of supervision in terms of employee confidence, satisfaction and retention, the creation of a greater supervision culture could also provide important organisational benefits.
Conclusion
Effective supervision has the potential to create a more positive environment for staff and enhance the quality of practice interventions, and participants in this research clearly identified the benefits of professional supervision. From an organisational perspective in a neoliberal environment where ‘best practice outcomes’ are required for funding agreements, the potential for professional supervision to assist in the management of competing workplace demands presents real possibilities.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.