Abstract
Supervision of student employees is a core competency of the student affairs profession, according to the American College Personnel Association and national Association of Student Personnel Administrators (2015). Supervision experiences are often solitary; one entry-level professional supervising a crop of undergraduates. Yet, a co-supervisory experience may be becoming more common. A co-supervisory experience is where two entry-level professionals provide oversight and supervision jointly.
As we reflected on that academic year, we quickly realized the strange, yet familiar, role supervision played in our experience. While we both had experience supervising individually, we wanted to work together to create a cohesive experience where we operated and performed as a team versus as two distinct supervisors. As such, we split up the RAs into two groups where we each supervised half of the team. We worked to develop a consistent experience for the RAs by communicating regularly about our work, so that in the event one of us was out of the office, the other could step in and continue. Last, we hoped to foster and sustain strong partnerships with the LLP program directors, who are non-HRL staff that create and facilitate the vision for the community through presence and communication. Co-supervision was how we achieved these goals, while also maintaining some semblance of sanity in our personal and professional lives.
As we reflected on that academic year, we quickly realized the strange, yet familiar, role supervision played in our experience. While we both had experience supervising individually, we wanted to work together to create a cohesive experience where we operated and performed as a team versus as two distinct supervisors.
While reflecting on our experience, we realized not many people know how to dive into a co-supervisory relationship; let alone us when we started! We recalled starting off the year together hoping for a consistent experience for the RAs and a workload that was balanced and equitable between us. Thus, we chose to begin co-supervising. Fast forwarding to our conversation, now removed from the daily work of co-supervising, we started to think about the research that might have been done by others regarding this topic to better understand our experience. While much has been written about supervision, we were at a loss when looking for resources about co-supervision. The year we oversaw this residence hall was a whirlwind with students in distress, student staff learning to navigate dual roles, multiple campus partnerships, and a crisis here or there. As we discussed our time navigating that experience, it became clear that this gap in advice for supervision was more than a gap; it was a crucial missing piece in the advice for supervisors. Higher education today is faced with numerous challenges, one of which Ronald Brownstein (2013) identifies as decreasing resources. As a result, many institutions may need to reevaluate staffing structures to maximize their organizational capacity. One potential solution is the co-supervision of staffs.
As we discussed our time navigating that experience, it became clear that this gap in advice for supervision was more than a gap; it was a crucial missing piece in the advice for supervisors.
Roger Winston and Don Creamer (1998) define supervision as a “management function intended to promote the achievement of institutional goals and to enhance the personal and professional capabilities of staff” (p. 3). While this definition was instrumental in thinking about our experience supervising, we felt that our experience aligned more with Winston and Creamer’s definition for synergistic supervision. Winston and Creamer assert that supervision “be viewed as a helping process provided by the institution to benefit or support staff rather than as a mechanism for punishment inflicted on practitioners for unsatisfactory performance” (p. 30).
Through reflecting on our experiences, we were able to ascertain that a successful co-supervision partnership requires that the professionals approach their work with a focus on shared success and student development. In other words, we were not worried about one of us being more successful in their work; if one of us was succeeding in one capacity, that made us both better professionals because we were benefitting both the students and each other. Additionally, we both believed that core to our work is the mission to support student learning and development. Thus, we didn’t have to navigate the tension of different mindsets. We learned that it is most important that both professionals in the co-supervision relationship are ideologically aligned. In addition, we learned that we needed to communicate regularly to be successful. Throughout our time co-supervising, our consistent communication ensured that we both were aware and able to run the community independently. Through these tenets, the case studies below will make supervision both familiar and strange.
…a successful co-supervision partnership requires that the professionals approach their work with a focus on shared success and student development.
Supporting Solomon
We could have been territorial and protective of the specific RAs we supervised, but once we recognized co-supervising Solomon meant he would cross supervisory lines for different reasons, we realized we would need to communicate more openly about each member on staff. As we were ideologically aligned, we were able to focus on our student staff members’ holistic development, which made us better supervisors and colleagues.
As we were ideologically aligned, we were able to focus on our student staff members’ holistic development, which made us better supervisors and colleagues.
Dual Support Not Duel Support
We met weekly to ensure we were on the same page about the community. We quickly learned in talking about Solomon that we were co-supervising our team. This meant that we needed to trust each other to meet the needs of each of our student staff members. While trust doesn’t always come easy, we had previously worked together on projects and on call, allowing us to establish a base level of trust. To ensure we were both supporting Solomon’s growth and learning, we communicated to one another about our conversations with Solomon regularly, so he could be supported holistically. Because of our experience with Solomon, we fell into a rhythm and replicated this communication method with other staff members to ensure we were centering their learning in our work as they navigated their own challenges as student leaders.
This meant that we needed to trust each other to meet the needs of each of our student staff members.
Addressing Interpersonal Conflict
After hearing about the issues, we discussed the root of the issues, as well as how to best navigate them. Because we had set expectations at the beginning of the year and made the commitment to address conflict directly, we brought up the interpersonal issues at the start of a staff meeting and prompted them to discuss their concerns, feelings, and issues with one another. While this was a risky strategy, we believed it was the only way to ensure everything would be brought to light and addressed directly and effectively, while also being consistent with our predetermined expectations. Though we knew the staff would rather sit and watch paint dry than discuss the interpersonal issues, it was vital that the strategy we used to address the conflict aligned with their expectations to ensure buy-in and cooperation. Additionally, it allowed us to address conflict head on, which we both preferred.
While this was a risky strategy, we believed it was the only way to ensure everything would be brought to light and addressed directly and effectively, while also being consistent with our predetermined expectations.
From these conversations, we learned how to lead from Lee Bolman and Terry Deal’s (2013) frames of leadership. Specifically, Stephen leads from the political frame, causing him to think about sources of power, coalition building, and potential sources of conflict. Conversely, Erin operates from a blend of the human resources and structural frames, which causes her to think about interpersonal and group dynamics as well as how to organize effectively to accomplish tasks. These frames were instrumental in helping us resolve the interpersonal conflict on our staff.
We were able to blend our leadership frames to not only identify the source of the strife but also to create a solution. Through the political frame, we were able to identify key players who were causing the interpersonal conflict and key players who would be able to help the staff move beyond the conflict. The human resources and structural frames helped us create a plan that was rooted in the dynamics of the group, while also ensuring consistency for the students.
We were able to blend our leadership frames to not only identify the source of the strife but also to create a solution.
Consistent and Direct Personnel Management
It is vital that co-supervisors are consistent in their approach to addressing conflict and personnel issues.
Challenging Partnerships
During Erin’s one on one conversations with Deborah, Deborah shared what Cathy was asking her to do for the LLP. Through conversation, it became clear that Deborah’s role as an LLP RA and Cathy’s student employee were intertwined, and that Deborah needed some assistance clarifying her roles. As Deborah was beginning to worry about her expectations, Erin became concerned about Deborah’s workload and the potential for her to take on too much. Erin spoke with Stephen, who also had growing concerns, as his office was directly across from Cathy’s office, allowing him to interact with Deborah, much like Solomon and Erin interacted.
…it became clear that Deborah’s role as an LLP RA and Cathy’s student employee were intertwined, and that Deborah needed some assistance clarifying her roles.
As a result, we discussed how we might support Deborah in navigating her dual roles, and we concluded that we needed to better support Deborah’s partnership with Cathy. This manifested in a series of conversations between the three of us to discuss how Deborah was navigating the expectations Cathy had for Deborah. We consistently advocated to develop concrete expectations with Cathy that allowed Deborah to understand her roles and maintain some semblance of balance. This became an ongoing process, as both Deborah and Cathy would fluctuate between adhering to and neglecting the parameters that were set in those conversations.
Campus Partnerships in a Co-Supervision Model
This experience taught us how to support both a student and colleague, while also challenging them to advocate for their needs.
Conclusion
Our experience co-supervising allowed us to learn each other’s strengths and weaknesses. We were vulnerable and trusting with each other, which allowed us to become better at the work we do for students. Co-supervision is not always easy. It takes individuals that are willing to be molded by their partnership and experience. Ultimately, the theme for our year was communication, which Roger Winston and Don Creamer (1998) outline as an essential characteristic of synergistic supervision.
We were vulnerable and trusting with each other, which allowed us to become better at the work we do for students. Co-supervision is not always easy. It takes individuals that are willing to be molded by their partnership and experience.
The case studies above are all rooted in effective communication. In a co-supervisory capacity, communication looks different: one has to over communicate, continuously Cc the other on emails, pick up the phone and call the other, and leave detailed notes in case management software. Throughout our year leading the residence hall, we were constantly aware of each other’s business, not because we were nosy or worried about the other not pulling their weight, but because we needed to know the intimate details of our community to manage it effectively. This benefited our staff and our students, as we were able to seamlessly support them, regardless of who was directly responsible for them.
While not a common experience, co-supervision can be incredibly rewarding, both personally and professionally. We learned from one another, becoming better supervisors and educators. For example, Stephen learned the importance of recognition and celebration and continued to hone his approach to accountability of staff members. Erin learned to think about the bigger picture and the future of the community, which allowed her to better develop the student leaders she supervised.
We learned from one another, becoming better supervisors and educators.
Co-supervision is an experience that is not limited to the coordinator experience. Graduate student supervisors should take note of this co-supervisory model; leading from a co-supervisory structure with a graduate student allows the graduate student to learn what it means to be a student affairs professional with the support of an effective supervisor. Mid-level and senior leaders in organizations may co-supervise, work on projects together, or co-lead committees. Learning to co-supervise effectively allows student affairs educators to learn the balance of working collegially while also building an effective partnership. A successful co-supervisory relationship requires a focus on shared accomplishments, ideological alignment, and effective communication. The lessons we learned during our time co-supervising still resonate with us years later.
Learning to co-supervise effectively allows student affairs educators to learn the balance of working collegially while also building an effective partnership.
