Content uploaded by Liz Beddoe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Liz Beddoe on Jan 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]
On: 29 May 2012, At: 02:56
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Australian Social Work
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rasw20
External Supervision in Social Work:
Power, Space, Risk, and the Search for
Safety
Liz Beddoe a
a School of Counselling, Human Services and Social Work,
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Available online: 22 Nov 2011
To cite this article: Liz Beddoe (2012): External Supervision in Social Work: Power, Space, Risk, and
the Search for Safety, Australian Social Work, 65:2, 197-213
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2011.591187
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
External Supervision in Social Work: Power, Space, Risk, and the
Search for Safety
1
Liz Beddoe
School of Counselling, Human Services and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand
Abstract
Over the past few decades there has been a trend to separate ‘‘clinical’’ or ‘‘professional’’
supervision of social workers from ‘‘line’’ supervision provided in social services. Professional
or clinical supervision is often sourced externally through a private arrangement or
contracted out by agencies to individual practitioners of supervision. A number of factors
underpin the development of this external supervision including: the perceived imposition of
managerial agendas on supervision; the problem of power dynamics within organisations;
and a growing ‘‘risk’’ conceptualisation of practitioners’ wellbeing. A potential negative
impact of this separation of supervision from the ‘‘field’’ of practice is that it privatises
supervision in a manner that in itself poses risks. This exploratory paper examines the
impact of discourses of risk and safety, space and place within social work supervision and
draws links between these aspects. Some material drawn from a small qualitative study of
the experiences of six expert supervisors in New Zealand illuminates these themes. A
significant finding was that the dominance of compliance and surveillance activities within
the public sector was linked to the pursuit of external supervision and that four dominant
forms of supervision can be discerned in the current discourse.
Keywords: Social Work Supervision; Social Work Practice; Neoliberalism
Supervision is currently experiencing a resurgence of interest, not in small part due to
political and organisational anxiety about risk (Beddoe, 2010; Peach & Horner, 2007)
and the recommendations of high profile child abuse inquiries. In the United
Kingdom, Lord Laming’s review of child protection found that inconsistent provision
of supervision remained a persistent problem and recommended improvement
(Laming,2009). Supervision has grown as a practice within the helping professions
with diverse models and approaches being developed, each reflecting to large extent
the professional habitus of their proponents. There is now a substantial body of
literature for each of the professions of counselling, social work, nursing, psychology,
Accepted 14 May 2011
1
Paper accepted under the editorship of Professor Christine Bigby and Dr Jane Maidment.
Correspondence to: Associate Professor Liz Beddoe, School of Counselling, Human Services and Social Work,
Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, Private Bag, 92601 Symonds St, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail:
e.beddoe@auckland.ac.nz
ISSN 0312-407X (print)/ISSN 1447-0748 (online) #2012 Australian Association of Social Workers
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2011.591187
Australian Social Work
Vol. 65, No. 2, June 2012, pp. 197213
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
and psychotherapy (Davys & Beddoe, 2010). There has always been debate about the
proper set of functions within the supervisory system and the tensions that exist
between these functions within professional and organisational contexts (Payne,
1994). Two features of social work supervision differentiate it from supervision in
other professions. The first is that social workers have supervision throughout their
career, rather than only while training. The second feature is that supervision has
been traditionally practiced ‘‘in-house’’ within organisational settings, hence the
strong presence of administrative (Kadushin, 1976) or managerial (Morrison, 2001)
functions (Davys & Beddoe, 2010).
Vignette
Jack is a newly-appointed manager of a nongovernmental disability support agency.
He is a qualified, registered social worker, with many years experience in the public
health system. Jack is surprised to find that all the social workers have external
supervision. They have been with the same supervisor for between five and 15
years. When he questions what accountability mechanisms are in place between the
agency and the supervisor he meets resistance and is told that all he has to do is
approve the invoices for payment. Anything else would be seen as an invasion of
privacy.
This story (details changed), told in a supervision training session triggered my
interest in the dynamics of ‘‘external supervision’’, some 12 years ago. This paper
explores some core issues in contemporary supervision with reference to a recent
small study conducted in New Zealand.
Supervision has been a core professional activity in social work since the late 19
th
century (Tsui & Ho, 1997) and an accepted division of supervisory functions
survives. These functions of supervision are commonly labelled administrative,
educative, and supportive (Kadushin, 1976). The administrative function describes
the participants’accountability to the policies, ethics, and standards that are
prescribed by both employing organisations and regulatory bodies. More recent
delineations of function are closely aligned to this earlier model. Hughes and Pengelly
(1997) acknowledged the growing impact of a risk-averse climate in the ‘‘turbulent
environment’’ of social services in the 1990s and identified the foci of supervision as
managing service delivery, facilitating practitioners’professional development, and
exploration of practitioners’work (Hughes & Pengelly, 1997). Morrison (2001)
described four central functions of supervision: competent, accountable performance
or practice (managerial); continuing professional development (developmental);
personal support (supportive); and engaging the individual with the organisation
(mediation function), this latter being a significant addition that originated in a
publication by Richards and Payne (1991). The mediative aspect of supervision
makes explicit recognition of the complex and competing personal, organisational,
and professional agendas present in the supervision encounter (Morrison, 2001).
Bradley, Engelbrecht, and Hojer (2010) further noted that the functions of
supervision have remained a relatively stable set of concepts but are not apolitical;
198 L. Beddoe
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
indeed, ‘‘in practice they appear less neutral and the time spent proportionately on
them is likely to reflect the predominant agenda’’ (Bradley et al., 2010, p. 777).
Bradley et al. (2010) also pointed to an overemphasis on administration, which might
reflect an underlying ideology where the agency is management-driven, whereas
where supervision has a predominantly supportive focus this is ‘‘more likely to
promote a person-centred, professional agenda with a different type of power
dynamic between worker and supervisor’’ (Bradley et al., 2010, p. 777). Bradley and
Hojer (2009) compared English and Swedish approaches to supervision and noted
that in Scandinavian countries a dual approach operates. Supervision provided by
external consultants is combined with internal, method-oriented supervision,
provided by the line manager of the practitioners (Bradley & Hojer, 2009).
The almost total alignment of supervision and line management in some
jurisdictions, and most commonly in statutory (mandated) practice, means that
power dynamics are inevitable and need to be addressed (Cousins, 2010). The
common depiction of supervision as being both an organisational activity and a
professional imperative (Beddoe & Egan, 2009) links to the tensions inherent in
social work, where practice is often in state-funded organisations and professional
autonomy may be severely limited. These tensions require negotiation of the
supervision process and this theme is identified and discussed throughout the
literature (Hughes & Pengelly, 1997; Morrison, 2001; Noble & Irwin, 2009; Peach &
Horner, 2007). Since the late 1990s there has been an increasing trend in New
Zealand toward separation of ‘‘clinical’’ supervision from ‘‘line management or
administrative supervision’’ (Cooper, 2006; Morrell, 2001, 2008). This is often
referred to as ‘‘external supervision’’, an allusion to the fact that many workers go
‘‘outside’’ their agency for supervision. This development proposes the separation of
the organisational accountability for clinical practice from the role of clinical
supervisor unless this is specifically contracted between the agency and the external
supervisor.
External Supervision: The Debates
External supervision is defined here as supervision that takes place between a practitioner
and a supervisor who do not both work for the same employing organisation. The
physical space in which this occurs may be different from the worker’snormalworkplace
and it is bounded by complex expectations, which may or may not be covered in a
written contract. In the current environment, discourses of risk and vulnerability
emanate from anxious, risk-averse governments and impact on supervision. Research
suggests the growth of external supervision reflects this broader context (Beddoe, 2010).
Discussing risk, Green (2007) stated that ‘‘governments and their regulatory agencies are
very anxious to control the identification and deployment of risks, given the significance
of this process to the allocation of blame’’ (p. 405).
Supervision can be harnessed to technologies of risk minimisation and, where this
appropriation occurs, a shift from a focus on the development of practitioners to the
Australian Social Work 199
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
monitoring of their practice occurs (Peach & Horner, 2007). Cooper (2006) argued
that managerialist environments encouraged the push towards external supervision
and issues of accountability often drive managers to be anxious about supervision.
The provision of external supervision can play into the accountability agenda, with
supervision rendered a compliance activity to be checked off on the list of
mechanisms that aim to ensure safe practice.
Additional arguments in favour of external supervision generally focus on the
importance of supervisee choice and direction (Davys, 2005a); supervisory clinical
competence (McAuliffe & Sudbery, 2005); unhealthy organisational culture (Hawkins
& Shohet, 2006); concern about surveillance (Peach & Horner, 2007); and concerns
about power differentials in the supervisory relationship when it is a dual relationship
(e.g., the supervisor is a line manager) (Gilbert, 2001; McAuliffe & Sudbery, 2005).
Supervisee choice was important, especially in relation to group membership and
professional identity, as reported by Davys (2005a), where participant choice was a
major indicator of satisfaction. Consideration of supervisee and supervisor
characteristics particularly in relation to ethnicity, culture, gender, age, and
professional and theoretical orientation are also considered to be important (Davys,
2005b; Hair & O’Donoghue, 2009; Tsui & Ho, 1997).
Organisational Culture and Surveillance
Cooper (2006) noted that supervision was a ‘‘highly individualised practice’’ (p. 29),
often valued for the privacy of a one-to-one relationship, with meetings held behind
closed doors. Confidentiality is highly valued by practitioners, and one significant
factor that differentiates external supervision from a line management approach to
supervision is the expectation that an external supervisor will hold less information
about the practitioner, including administrative, educational, career, and personal
issues, which may be well known by an internal supervisor. Cooper’s research on
supervision within a large mental health service (Cooper, 2006; Cooper & Anglem,
2003) found that there was ‘‘a degree of mistrust between practitioners and line
managers, as line managers have comprehensive administrative information about
practitioners, and this may lower levels of confidentiality’’ (Cooper, 2006, p. 29).
Where supervision is a private arrangement between practitioners, conducted
‘‘outside the managerial gaze, confidentiality will have a high priority’’ (Cooper,
2006, p. 29). Difficulties of access to social work supervision within organisations are
also common (McAuliffe & Sudbery, 2005). Power and aspects of organisational
culture that stifle critical reflection may drive the use of external supervision, and
McAuliffe and Sudbery (2005) found that research participants with external
supervisors were more likely to have raised ethical dilemmas in supervision having
requested ‘‘dedicated time for clarification of ethical dimensions and problem-
solving’’ (p. 28). These researchers noted that some workers reported a critical
position on internal supervision where it is linked to control and managerial concerns
(McAuliffe & Sudbery, 2005).
200 L. Beddoe
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
Supervision is generally accepted as a core process within social work, despite these
unsettling influences that stem from the new public management (Jones, 2004) and
other upheavals faced during recent times of turbulence (Noble & Irwin, 2009).
While the literature predominantly portrays supervision as facilitative and suppor-
tive, interpretations of government policy promote supervision as risk focussed and a
vaccine against mistakes (Beddoe, 2010). The critique of supervision as a form of
surveillance is not new; although it has been notably stronger in nursing, as noted in
Johns’concern that ‘‘supervision ...becomes an opportunity to shape the practi-
tioner into organisationally preferred ways of practice, even whilst veiled as being in
the practitioner’s best interests’’ (Johns, 2001, p. 140). Gilbert (2001) suggested that
as supervision can ‘‘demonstrate the subtle but pervasive exercise of power that
operates to maintain a level of surveillance upon the activity of professionals’’ (p.
200). For supervisors, the focus on scrutiny of practice decisions can become a
constant source of stress as is worker safety. Supervision becomes a central plank in a
professional safety discourse, as O’Donoghue, Munford, and Trlin (2006) found
where:
supervision was also depicted as an accountability forum... as well as ‘‘shared
responsibility for decisions’’. Safety was concerned with: the respondent’s safety,
client and supervisee safety, enabling ‘‘safe practice’’ and the provision of a ‘‘safety
net’’ for the worker. (p. 83)
Anxiety abounds about adverse practice outcomes, which may range from simple
errors that moderately threaten reputation; negative comment on the organisation;
fear of serious harm to service users, patients, staff, or the public; and the publicity
attached to these adverse events (Kemshall, 2010). When anxiety overwhelms other
more positive approaches to practice, innovation may become too risky (Beddoe,
2009). Supervisors reported that reliance on risk-assessment tools rather than
reflection promoted more reactive and mechanistic practice creativity may be
reduced (Beddoe, 2010). Gillingham’s research in Australia has indicated that
checklists in supervision may reduce some of the anxiety that supervisors feel but
not necessarily improve the practice (Gillingham, 2006; Gillingham & Bromfield,
2008). In a similar vein, Stanley argued that ‘‘the paradox of risk is that a surface
approach and application to it actually increases risks to children, those with mental
illness and others of vulnerability’’ (Stanley, 2010, p. 38).
Space, Place, and Power
My previous research (Beddoe, 2009) has explored the layers of discourse in
professional practice in organisational settings. Supervision is a highly specific form
of professional communication and discourse and is thus both influenced by and has
influence on the spaces and places in which it is enacted and spoken. Bernstein’s
concepts of ‘‘vertical’’ and ‘‘horizontal’’ discourse are useful to consider here when
considering what kinds of practice might be reflected in and by supervision in social
Australian Social Work 201
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
work. Bernstein (1999) suggested that academic (in this case, theory informed and
systematic supervision) and ‘‘everyday’’ knowledge (here, perhaps the more person-
centred narrative traditions of supervision) represent different, incompatible knowl-
edge forms that cannot be successfully integrated. Vertical discourse takes the form of a
coherent, explicit, and systematically principled structure, hierarchically organised (in
the sciences), or ‘‘a series of specialised languages with specialised modes of
interrogations and specialised criteria for the production and circulation of texts, as
in the social sciences and humanities’’ (Bernstein, 1999, p. 159). Williams and Wilson
(2010) explained that ‘‘access to vertical discourse is controlled by strong ‘distributive
rules’which regulate power relations between social groups by distributing to them
different forms of knowledge, ‘consciousness’and identity’’ (p. 422). Thus, line
management supervision might be characterised by rules, risk assessment checklists, in
the realm of compliant bureaucracy. Such hierarchical supervision relationships may
render culture and difference invisible, or contain racist or homophobic dynamics and
become oppressive (Hair & O’Donoghue, 2009; Hernandez & McDowell, 2010).
By contrast, horizontal discourses are the ‘‘common sense’’ kinds of knowledge
available to those who share understandings within in a community and activated in
everyday social practice. Bernstein (1999) described horizontal discourses as ‘‘likely to
be oral, local, context dependent and specific, tacit, multi-layered, and contradictory
across but not within contexts’’ (p. 159). Horizontal discourses are informally
acquired, either tacitly, by behaviours observed or modelled in face-to-face encounters
in relationships in social contexts. Supervision in which power inequalities and
barriers to free expression are minimised might fit this latter form of discourse, and
thus be more grounded in the reflective but structured conversations suggested in
reflective learning supervision (Davys & Beddoe, 2010) or in structured critical
reflection (Fook & Gardner, 2007). Supervision that is cognisant of the cultural and
socioeconomic oppression of non dominant groups, whether as social workers or
service-users, is needed if supervision ‘‘can successfully encourage cultural relevancy
and the pursuit of social justice’’ (Hair & O’Donoghue, 2009, p. 70). Oppressive
dynamics are not inevitable, but without addressing these tensions supervision may
reflect wider organisational and societal oppressive dynamics, and this is a powerful
driver of external ‘‘cultural supervision’’ in New Zealand (Davys, 2005b).
Is the physical place in which these reflective encounters take place equally as
important as the more mutable ‘‘space’’ in which identity and power factors play?
Both notions of space and place frequently occur as terms used in the discussion of
supervision. Busse (2009) suggested that supervision has become somewhat detached
from its core of reflective practice and has
become frayed at the edges as a result of its almost uncurbed expansion in a
horizontal direction (its development from an individual setting to being located at
the edge of organisational consultancy) and in a vertical direction (into
professional fields other than social work, including profit areas). (p. 165)
202 L. Beddoe
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
Supervision has also become detached from the tradition of individuals meeting in
their shared workplace. It is this removal to an external space that O’Donoghue et al.
(2006) described where practitioners were concerned with:
The location where supervision occurred, its availability, the type of space provided
by supervision and the place that supervision was for them. For the respondents an
external location, (i.e. outside of the agency)...conducted in a relaxed atmosphere,
within a space provided for offloading, discussion, and reflection, were key features.
(Italics added) (p. 84)
The ‘‘place’’ can be significant as a safety-zone, away from the busy workplace,
removed from the tensions inherent in crisis work: ‘‘The respondents described
[supervision] as the place where they connected with their supervisor, profession,
peer and group; shared their frustrations and successes; could be challenged; and
could learn and develop’’ [Italics added], (O’Donoghue et al., 2006, p. 84).
For Busse (2009) the location of external supervision away from the office is an
attempt to achieve a more reflective, democratic space:
Supervision, as has become clearer, is an exclusive space for the reflexive
achievement of distance from working life, but it is not a space that can be kept
free of the logic of the latter, or one from which this reality can be locked out.
[Italics added] (p. 162)
The place can also be problematic. ‘‘The shortcomings [of external supervision] are
that it is too removed from practice, isolated from the organisation and takes place in
secluded rooms’’ [Italics added], (Bradley et al., 2010, p. 784785).
Issues of power and control are at the heart of these discomforts and power is the
most problematic aspect of line management supervision. Supervision relationships
cannot be easily sheltered from the operation of policy in action. Gilbert and Powell
(2010) noted that ‘‘power relations operating via the most mundane interactions
between managers, social workers, service users and carers enable the formation and
shifting of alliances between political and non-political authorities’’ (p. 12).
So, if the space and place in which supervision is conducted is fraught with
difficulties and power is the main factor is external supervision the answer? It is
assumed that external supervision lessens the impact of power and authority issues.
Supervisees will thus have greater freedom to express themselves and presumably to
ventilate about organisational issues. There are a number of pitfalls in the separation
of supervision from clinical accountability. There may be an ambiguous mandate for
dealing with issues of poor performance where supervisors become aware of
performance matters but have no mandate or clear contract to address these. There
is the potential for unhealthy collusion where there are grievances in the practitioner
relationships with line managers and the separation of supervision from practice may
deepen the experience of the gulf between ‘‘management’’ and ‘‘practice’’ and thus
reduce the flow of information between the layers of the organisation.
Australian Social Work 203
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
Method
Conversations with ‘‘External’’ Supervisors about Risk and Safety in Supervision
In order to explore the impact of the risk-averse environment on supervision,
experienced supervisors were invited to participate in an exploration of supervision
in the risk society (as reported in Beddoe, 2010). The broad themes arising in the
main study were: (a) if allowed, risk obsession stifles professional growth
opportunities in supervision; (b) good supervision is determined more by process
not content; (c) balancing the functions of supervision is required and lastly; and (d)
separation of managerial and professional aspects of supervision is ideal, with an
unanticipated subtheme emerging concerning risk and the management of external
supervision relationships (Beddoe, 2010).
Participants
Six experienced supervisors were invited to participate in the study. Interviews were
designed to shed light on the challenges of supervision practice in the current climate.
All six participants had considerable involvement and interest in supervision in the
social services in New Zealand. Participants were selected for the research according
to the following criteria: they were qualified social workers; held supervision
qualifications, or had undertaken teaching, practice development, or research in
the field; had supervised staff in more than one field of practice, and at least five years
supervision experience. Given the small number of participants and the purposive
selection, these experiences cannot be viewed as representative of New Zealand
supervisors. The participants had from seven to 20 years supervision experience and
all had supervised both within their employment in social service organisations and
as external supervisors.
Themes
The broad themes for exploration were: supervision and line management; influences
of recent regulation of social work in New Zealand; supervisory focus on the key
traditional functions of supervision and organisational compliance pressures; any
strain experienced between person-centred, facilitative supervision and managerial or
compliance activities; and awareness of the current discussion of surveillance of
professionals within in the risk society (Beddoe, 2010). That a focus on external
supervision emerged in the interview data was spontaneous but not unexpected.
Results
Compliance, Surveillance, and Supervision
The dominance of compliance and surveillance activities within public sector regimes
of audit and quality management was a common point of reference for participants
in the study, as a reason for external supervision. Lucy
1
noted that ‘‘my concern is
1
Pseudonyms are used throughout the paper to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.
204 L. Beddoe
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
that what’s actually happening is that ...supervision becomes tick box compliance’’.
Lucy felt the focus on compliance altered the focus of supervision:
There is not sufficient high level understanding about the reflective nature [of
supervision] so all that we’re doing is actually if you like reinforcing, will end up
being [what Proctor calls] normative supervision which may also be about risk
management. (Lucy)
Risk management reflected managerial concerns: ‘‘Risk management is actually
management supervision. I don’t think it’s the same as reflective supervision ...let’s
not confuse [management supervision] with whatever you want to call it,
professional, clinical, reflective supervision’’ (Lucy); and ‘‘When I think about it,
that’s also what the problem in child protection is probably. They turn up at
supervision ...with their list of case load’’ (Mary).
Participants wanted supervision to avoid an overemphasis on compliance; and it
was also important that external supervision did not go in that direction, given the
dominance of compliance inside organisations: ‘‘The line management stuff and the
surveillance stuff needs to be internal rather than external and if you push external
supervision to be like that then you lose that space for reflection’’ (Andrea).
I think even though my social workers are really comfortable in supervision there is
always that aspect of feeling under scrutiny that can make it a little bit more of a
nervous exercise and where you probably do call on the compliance...you have
people who turn up but they’re actually in a resistance frame so you don’t have
particularly good quality supervision, you have all the undercurrents. (Angie)
Angie felt that power often underpinned the discomfort with line management
supervision and the move towards external supervision. As a professional leader she
was conscious that social workers want to keep management and reflective supervision
separate: ‘‘There is again always that slightly unnamed aspect of power. When people start
resisting or actually feeling not particularly comfortable in your agency, the next thing
you can guarantee is they’ll ask for external [supervision]’’ (Angie).
Thus, quality of supervision was also a significant issue in internal supervision and
participants noted that that it is really hard to get that balance when in a workplace.
Crikey, I think I might have made a really big challenge you know creating that no
blame culture whilst also having a culture of scrutiny about practice. [It is] difficult,
something that I haven’t managed to achieve and I’m really keen to achieve it. You
know it’s a safe environment for people to discover their learning edge. (Rose)
Emotional Safety: Social Workers at Risk
One of the major arguments for external supervision is that it provides an
opportunity to offer emotional support that is untainted by power relations and
issues of confidentiality. Thus, the external supervisor becomes seen as an advocate
for stressed and troubled workers. Stanford (2010) noted that ‘‘the rhetoric of risk,
however, also extends to social workers who are constructed as ‘at risk’from clients
Australian Social Work 205
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
(increasingly considered to pose a physical and/or emotional/psychological threat),
critical colleagues and managers ...and they are ‘a risk’to vulnerable clients if they
do not identify and respond appropriately to apparent risk’’ (p. 1067). Angie
commented on the additional risk where a supervisor was stressed:
I think one of the most dangerous things I’ve seen is supervisors who are actually
really anxious and so the worker, often because social workers are generally quite
empathetic, picks up that their supervisor is not in a good head space and they
shield them and [then we see] behaviours coming out, that start to tell you that the
worker is trying to contain too much. (Angie)
Knowing when practitioners are ‘‘at risk’’ or ‘‘a risk’’, to employ Stanford’s (2010)
depictions, emerged as one of the concerns for external supervisors. All participants
noted a tendency to rely on reported performance rather than the full 3608
information collected through day-to-day interaction and observation of practitioner
performance in teams, case consultations, meetings, and internal supervision. Issues
of duty of care to practitioners and service users can remain unclear and yet may be
vitally significant when things go wrong. For these reasons, Rose, who had provided
internal and external supervision, felt that she was quite unusual in her view that
supervision and line management were perhaps better undertaken by the same
person:
My experience of people being engaged in external supervision is that they rely
entirely on report from the supervisor. People can be in a quite a difficult work
environment, you know either performing not so well or things can be going on
that [need to be] attended to but my experience is that they’re not so often
addressed in external supervision. (Rose)
There is potential for an unhealthy triangulation of practitioner, line manager, and
clinical supervisor and so sufficient attention must be paid to the clarity of the
mandate for supervision and lines of communication (Davys & Beddoe, 2010).
Contracts are important and a line manager may be relieved of responsibility to
ensure all aspects of the monitoring of personal and practice safety issues in the
workplace:
I think the other risk [is where] a supervisee is defined as being at risk in terms of
their behaviour or their health or something and an external supervisor doesn’t
know. That’s the bit that I think is dangerous for the supervisor because you don’t
know what ...the supervisee chooses not to tell you for whatever reason. (Lucy)
Managing accountability in external supervision was often linked to concerns
about supervisor accountability:
You don’t always know whether there’s honesty happening between the supervisee
and the organisation so yeah it is a risk you have to manage... I do think about it...
particularly where a supervisee has said to their managers that yes they’ve taken [an
206 L. Beddoe
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
issue] to supervision and then you wonder...what sort of expectation of me does the
organisation have? (Andrea)
Andrea’s method for dealing with these concerns was to develop a strong tripartite
contract with the supervisee, the organisation, and herself. Thus, external supervision
requires diligent attention to relationships and at times this may require more input
than busy managers might want, as Andrea stated: ‘‘often it’s hard to get all the
parties together to talk, you have conversations on the phone, there’s that feeling of
the confidentiality lying between the supervisee and supervisor’’. Andrea and others
also noted that the financial arrangement challenged expectations of confidentiality:
‘‘And how much is the organisation required to know because they’re paying for it?’’
(Andrea).
There was a sense that private supervisors must be willing to accept the heavy
burden of clinical accountability, which could become a major issue with regulation
and thus greater investigation and potential litigation of complaints. All participants
felt that contracts and at least annual meetings were essential to manage the risks,
confirming the best practice suggested by Morrell (2001, 2008) and Davys (2007).
Supervisors noted the importance of their own choices in offering supervision.
Putting limits on numbers and restricting their scope or focus of practice enabled
them to put some boundaries up for their own safety and accountability. For
Margaret, one way to limit her ‘‘risk’’ was to be clear about who she would agree to
supervise:
I was thinking today about who I’m supervising and who I choose not to take
because of that surveillance piece so I don’t feel compromised in the context of my
private practice. Does that make sense? I don’t for instance supervise [statutory]
social workers because I don’t have the knowledge. (Margaret)
Mary could see the value of both internal and external supervision:
In the past, I’ve tended to think that in an ideal world it is more cost effective ... if
the line manager (if the relationship...and the conditions are right in the
organisation) could provide the so-called clinical supervision. That doesn’t happen
very often but I guess I think back to some of my supervision from a line manager
and thought that we integrated it quite well. (Mary)
Discussion
It is suggested that there are four dominant forms of supervision: internal
managerial, internal reflective, external professional, and external personal, as shown
in Figures 1 and 2.
Rather than see internal and external supervision as polar opposites, it is useful to
see a continuum of forms with different foci and attempt to capture the best features.
At one end of this continuum, internal managerial supervision takes place inside the
organisation and is mostly focused on task and process. At the other end, external
personal supervision is worker-focused and centres mainly on the narrative brought
Australian Social Work 207
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
into the supervision space by the worker (Figure 1). To return to Jack’s story from the
introduction, this is the exclusive arrangement found by him in his new job. This type
of supervision will highly value the space for worker ventilation of feelings, thus
echoing O’Donoghue et al.’s (2006) findings about the need for a safe place to
connect and reflect on use-of-self. The study participants all recognised that within a
strong commitment to supervision, both internal and external supervision could be
reflective. All valued the promotion of reflective practice as an integral part of
supervision, which should be separated from the technologies of accountability and
compliance. In advocating this approach they did not suggest that compliance was
not important; rather that it should be largely removed from the private reflective
space of supervision.
These participants’views have confirmed that tensions between managerial
accountability and professional autonomy remain an ever-present issue in social
work supervision. The ability to hold these tensions within a trusting relationship
with practitioners is an essential competency for managers and supervisors alike. The
alternative seems to be the total removal of the reflective supervision effort to the
private sector, leaving internal supervision in statutory agencies too often at the
mercy of dominating managerial concerns. Cooper’s (2006) research noted the
tendency for practitioners within one organisation to regard supervision as a
predominantly private arrangement between two individuals to ensure the highest
possible quality of care and professional standards ...This arrangement, driven by
the supervisees, is evidenced in particular by supervisees choosing the most
appropriate supervisors for their needs, sometimes from another profession,
entering into mostly verbal contracts. (p. 29)
Furthermore, and significantly, Cooper (2006) noted ‘‘the general feeling that they do
not need to give line managers any feedback about supervision’’ (p. 29). It needs to be
Figure 1 The processes, foci, and aims of the four dominant forms of supervision:
internal managerial, internal reflective, external professional, and external personal.
208 L. Beddoe
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
asked whether as a profession social work is willing to put at risk one of the anchors of
our profession. Indeed, that was Jack’s concern when he told the story on a supervision
course. How did he know whether the supervision was supporting safe practice? The
expert supervisors in this current study suggest that the practice of supervision is
evolving as awareness of multiple and complex accountabilities create some new ideas
about supervision. Importantly, they did not exclude the possibility that internal
supervision could meet needs. Their emphasis was on relationship and transparency.
Do We Really Want to Leave it to Market Forces?
External supervision, located as it is outside of the agency, may well allow more intensive
focus on clinical issues and personal professional development rather than organisa-
tional concerns. Figure 2 delineates aspects of the four forms of supervision with
reference to professional inquiry, emotion, and risk identity. External supervision may
provide a place in which knowledge can be utilised and created, although the
participants in this study were not specifically asked about knowledge use. While there
was little discussion of use of knowledge in supervision, there was a strong identification
of supervision with professional identity and competence. In addition, this external
supervision arrangement may increase the likelihood that supervision actually does take
place. In busy agency settings, supervision can often be neglected or deferred to
accommodate the latest crisis unless it is made a high priority by management. Jack’s
predecessor had liked this arrangement as he could tick supervision off as covered.
Figure 2 The inquiry, emotions, and risk elements of the four dominant forms of
supervision: internal managerial, internal reflective, external professional, and external
personal.
Australian Social Work 209
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
However, as Busse (2009) has pointed out, the widespread development of external
supervision has effectively privatised it. Supervision has to some extent left the
traditional site within the public or non governmental organisation into the private
sector where it has a market value. A further weakness of shifting supervision to this
‘‘arm’s length’’ position is that it may diminish professional efficacy to exert pressure
for organisational change (Bradley et al., 2010), as supervisors’ability to mediate
between frontline workers and management (Morrison, 2001) is diminished by their
external status. As a private commodity, purchased sometimes by the individual
practitioner, more often by their agency, it becomes less visible, less a collective good
linked to shared professional aspirations. This trend may be seen as both a
consequence and a reflection of the adoption of the ‘‘market’’ model in social
services. It reflects the ‘‘purchaser-provider’’ split so favoured by ‘‘new right’’
economic arguments. In the ultimate market model, supervision is a commodity
to be purchased, as part of the cost of ‘‘human resources’’ for the enterprise. If
‘‘employee assistance’’ and ‘‘health and safety’’ can all be purchased in the market
place at lower cost to the organisation, why not supervision? Figure 2 illustrates the
impact of this privatisation of supervision. The diagram suggests that on a
continuum of ‘‘internal managerial’’ to ‘‘external personal’’ the focus reflects
Stanford’s (2010) ‘‘risk identities’’. In the ‘‘internal’’ space, the focus may settle on
the practitioner as ‘‘a risk’’, while an ‘‘external personal’’ model places the social
worker ‘‘at risk’’ in a private space where venting is encouraged and the supervisee’s
feelings are held with minimal challenge. Jack was very concerned that a worker who
was displaying signs of burnout and disillusionment was unwilling to discuss this at
all, even when her behaviour was causing stress in the team. Her emotional wellbeing
in the work was not an area she wished to discuss and Jack’s attempt to arrange a
meeting with her external supervisor present for support was unwelcome.
Conclusions
The author’s view is that supervision is a complex, multifaceted process, which
occupies contested space between the employing organisation and the employed
professional social worker. It is supervision that is at the core of practice for service-
based professionals, where a sense of shared responsibility for the effectiveness and
safety of the practice is essential. If we separate the functions of this complex process
from each other, what mechanisms can exist in order to ensure that the safety of all of
the participants (practitioner, service delivery manager, clinical supervisor, clients
and other service users, and indeed the profession itself) in the supervisory process?
In an increasingly litigious world, how do we define and manage the duty of care that
exists between the parties? Does the absence of legitimated authority in the supervisor
lead to a lack of real challenge? What can supervisors do to check out other
perspectives?
Several areas for further exploration are signalled in this paper. The first relates to
the supervision discourse. We know so little about what in reality happens in
210 L. Beddoe
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
supervision; for example, how much formal knowledge is discussed or interrogated
and the extent to which critical reflection is promoted, although it is a common
assumption that external supervision will better support reflective practice. A second
issue concerns education and standards for supervision. In New Zealand, Australia,
and many other countries, supervisor education is not required and yet supervision is
often mandated (Social Workers Registration Board, 2009). O’Donoghue (2010) has
made strong recommendations for the development of supervisor education and
evaluation, and, given mandatory supervision requirements, further research by
professional bodies is needed.
The participants in this study strongly support what Noble and Irwin (2009)
termed ‘‘the joint and equal ...experience’’ (p. 355) of how to democratise the
supervision process so as to move it towards a more equal and socially aware
experience. While external supervision may provide some answers on the surface, in
reality even those who provide it pose serious questions about safety, transparency,
and the wellbeing of the profession.
References
Beddoe, L. (2009). Creating continuous conversation: Social workers and learning organizations.
Social Work Education-The International Journal,28, 722736.
Beddoe, L. (2010). Surveillance or reflection: Professional supervision in ‘‘the risk society’’.British
Journal of Social Work,40, 12791296.
Beddoe, L., & Egan, R. (2009). Social work supervision. In M. Connolly & L. Harms (Eds.), Social
work: Contexts and practice (2nd ed, pp. 410422). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of
Education,20, 157173.
Bradley, G., & Hojer, S. (2009). Supervision reviewed: Reflections on two different social work
models in England and Sweden. European Journal of Social Work,12,7185.
Bradley, G., Engelbrecht, L., & Hojer, S. (2010). Supervision: A force for change? Three stories told.
International Social Work,53, 773790.
Busse, S. (2009). Supervision between critical reflection and practical action. Journal of Social Work
Practice,23, 159173.
Cooper, L. (2006). Clinical supervision: Private arrangement or managed process? Social Work
Review,18,2130.
Cooper, L., & Anglem, J. (2003). Clinical supervision in mental health. Adelaide: Australian Centre
for Community Services Research, Flinders University and Anglicare SA.
Cousins, C. (2010). ‘‘Treat me don’t beat me’’: Exploring supervisory games and their effect on poor
performance management. Practice: Social Work in Action,22, 281292.
Davys, A. (2005a). Supervision: Is what we want what we need? Weaving together the strands of
supervision. In L. Beddoe, J. Worrall, & F. Howard (Eds.),, 2004, Conference Proceedings (pp.
1524), Auckland: University of Auckland.
Davys, A. (2005b). At the heart of the matter: Culture as a function of supervision. Social Work
Review,17,312.
Davys, A. (2007). Active participation in supervision: A supervisee’s guide. In D. Wepa (Ed.),
Clinical supervision in Aotearoa/New Zealand: A health perspective (pp. 2642). Auckland:
Pearson Education.
Australian Social Work 211
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
Davys, A., & Beddoe, L. (2010). Best practice in supervision: A guide for the helping professions.
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2007). Practising critical reflection: A resource handbook. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Gilbert, T. (2001). Reflective practice and clinical supervision: Meticulous rituals of the
confessional. Journal of Advanced Nursing,36, 199205.
Gilbert, T., & Powell, J. L. (2010). Power and social work in the United Kingdom: A Foucauldian
excursion. Journal of Social Work,10,322.
Gillingham, P. (2006). Risk assessment in child protection: Problem rather than solution. Australian
Social Work,59,8698.
Gillingham, P., & Bromfield, L. (2008). Child protection, risk assessment and blame ideology.
Children Australia,33,1824.
Green, D. (2007). Risk and social work practice. Australian Social Work,60, 395409.
Hair, H. J., & O’Donoghue, K. (2009). Culturally relevant, socially just social work supervision:
Becoming visible through a social constructionist lens. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural
Diversity in Social Work,18,7088.
Hawkins, P., & Shohef, R. (2006). Supervision in the helping professions (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Herna
´ndez, P., & McDowell, T. (2010). Intersectionality, power, and relational safety in context: Key
concepts in clinical supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology,4,2935.
Hughes, L., & Pengelly, P. (1997). Staff supervision in a turbulent environment: Managing process and
task in front-line services. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Johns, C. (2001). Depending on the intent and emphasis of the supervisor, clinical supervision can
be a different experience. Journal of Nursing Management,9, 139145.
Jones, M. (2004). Supervision, learning and transformative practices. In N. Gould & M. Baldwin
(Eds.), Social work, critical reflection and the learning organisation (pp. 1122). Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Kadushin, A. (1976). Supervision in social work. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Laming, The Lord, (2009). The protection of children in England: A progress report. London: HM
Government. The Stationery Office.
Kemshall, H. (2010). Risk rationalities in contemporary social work policy and practice. British
Journal of Social Work,40, 12471262.
McAuliffe, D., & Sudbery, J. (2005). ‘‘Who do I tell?’’ Support and consultation in cases of ethical
conflict. Journal of Social Work,5,2143.
Morrell, M. (2001). External supervision-confidential or accountable? An exploration of the
relationship between agency, supervisor and supervisee. Social Work Review,13,3641.
Morrell, M. (2008). Supervision contracts revisited: Towards a negotiated agreement. Social Work
Review,20,2231.
Morrison, T. (2001). Staff supervision in social care: Making a real difference for staff and service users.
Brighton: Pavilion.
Noble, C., & Irwin, J. (2009). Social work supervision: An exploration of the current challenges in a
rapidly changing social, economic and political environment. JournalofSocialWork,9, 345358.
O’Donoghue, K. (2010). Towards the construction of social work supervision in Aotearoa New
Zealand: A study of the perspectives of social work practitioners and supervisors. Unpublished
doctoral thesis: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
O’Donoghue, K., Munford, R., & Trlin, A. (2006). What’s best about social work supervision
according to Association members. Social Work Review,18,7992.
Payne, M. (1994). Personal supervision in social work. In A. Connor & S. E. Black (Eds.),
Performance review and quality in social care (pp. 4358). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Peach, J., & Horner, N. (2007). Using supervision: Support or surveillance. In M. Lymbery &
K. Postle (Eds.), Social work: A companion to learning (pp. 228239). London: Sage.
212 L. Beddoe
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
Richards, M., & Payne, C. (1991). Staff supervision in child protection work. London: National
Institute for Social Work.
Social Workers Registration Board, S. (2009). Supervision expectations for registered social workers:
Policy statement. Wellington, NZ: SWRB. Retrieved April 1, 2011, from http://www.swrb.org.
nz/files/Policies/RegSupervisionExpectationsRegSW.pdf.
Stanford, S. (2010). Speaking back’’ to fear: Responding to the moral dilemmas of risk in social
work practice. British Journal of Social Work,40, 10651080.
Stanley, T. (2010). Working with ‘‘risk’’:It’s more than just an assessment idea. Aotearoa New
Zealand Social Work Review,22,3743.
Tsui, M. S., & Ho, W. S. (1997). In search of a comprehensive model of social work supervision.
Clinical Supervisor,16, 181205.
Williams, C., & Wilson, S. (2010). Pedagogies for social justice: Did Bernstein get it wrong?
International Journal of Inclusive Education,14, 417434.
Australian Social Work 213
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 02:56 29 May 2012
