Effective Supervisory Relationships

Best Evidence and Practice

Helen Beinart, Susan Clohessy

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781118973622
  9781118973639
• eBook ISBN:
  9781118973608
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Psychologie clinique

Effective Supervisory Relationships: Best Evidence and Practice is the first book to explore in detail the Supervisory Relationship, which research has consistently found to be the most critical component of any supervisory process. Helen Beinart and Sue Clohessy – two experts in the field – draw on world-wide studies that cover all major therapeutic approaches to the Supervisory Relationship, and include detailed coverage of cultural competence and issues of effective multicultural supervision. The result is a comprehensive resource that offers cutting-edge, internationally relevant information in order to inform study, training, continuing professional development and practice.

Part I
Effective Supervisory Relationships: Best Evidence

1
Introduction

There are many books on supervision but very few that focus specifically on the supervisory relationship (SR). Best evidence to date suggests that the SR is the most significant aspect of supervision and that it contributes to improved practice, as well as supervisee efficacy, resilience, and well‐being. This book will provide the theory, research, and practice to support our readers in developing effective SRs and, in so doing, improved practice in their field of training or work.

The aim of the book is to provide cutting edge information on the SR based on current research and practice. We hope that this book will be useful and accessible to a broad range of practitioners who employ and apply psychological principles in their work, including applied psychologists, psychological therapists, mental health nurses, counselors, psychotherapists, and all those who work in health and social care (the helping professions). We consider these principles to be applicable to a broad audience, including those working in education and in the voluntary and independent sectors. For example, the coaching profession is developing rapidly and is beginning to require supervision as part of its practice. Those working in this field may find some of the material presented here very applicable.

The majority of published research on supervision draws from counseling psychology and psychotherapy, and much of the research has been conducted with those training to become applied psychologists. This is unsurprising as supervision is a central aspect of clinical and counseling psychology trainings. Supervision is also the core of training in the psychotherapy, medical, nursing, and social work professions and is a requirement for post‐qualification professional practice in the majority of the helping professions. Although much of the literature that we refer to in the book will relate to these professional groups, we believe that many of the principles outlined in the development of effective SRs will also apply to other groups, including those working in educational and academic contexts.

The unique aspect of this book is its review of the evidence, drawing out of the themes, and identification of methods to improve practice in a range of settings. The first part focuses on the evidence base, reviews models of supervision, discusses the supervisory dyad in some detail, explores measurement and supervision outcomes, and, finally, considers issues of ethics, diversity, and power in supervision. The second part explores best practice based on current theory and evidence, including practical techniques and methods to establish, develop, and maintain effective SRs. We discuss setting up SRs in a way that is likely to make them succeed, giving and receiving meaningful feedback, managing any difficulties that arise, and supporting reflective practice and ongoing learning and development. Additionally, we explore new directions in the future development of effective SRs including working with groups and on‐line.

The overwhelming finding from the emerging international evidence base within the dyadic supervision literature is that the SR is pivotal. Not only is it the vehicle through which supervision takes place but it is also the mutative aspect of supervision. This is illustrated by the following quotations from experts in the field: “good supervision is about the relationship, not the specific theory or techniques used” (Ellis, 2010, p. 106); “the supervisor–supervisee alliance has increasingly emerged as a variable of pre‐eminent importance in the conceptualization and conduct of supervision … it is widely embraced as the very heart and soul of supervision” (Watkins, 2014a, p. 19). In the latter paper, Watkins presents a challenge to the reader (and subsequent authors) when he asks if we really know what the SR is about. We hope that, by the end of this book, readers will have a clear understanding of the SR and its significance to supervision outcomes for both research and practice.

In this introductory chapter we shall discuss definitions of supervision and the SR, identify the key elements of the SR, and discuss some of the competency frameworks in this developing field.

Definitions

Before defining the SR, it is perhaps worth defining supervision itself. Proctor and Inskipp (1988, p. 4) provide a broad definition:

Supervision is a working alliance between supervisor and worker/s in which the worker can reflect on herself in her working situation by giving account of her work and receiving feedback and where appropriate, guidance and appraisal. The object of this alliance is to maximize the competence of the worker in providing a helping service.

Proctor and Inskipp (1988) identify three broad purposes of supervision, which have been widely accepted:

• normative: monitoring the quality of professional services, evaluation, gatekeeping for particular professional groups;
• formative: focusing on the development of the supervisee and enhancing professional competence;
• restorative: supporting the supervisee to express, process, and reflect on their work.

Milne (2009) describes an empirical definition of supervision, drawn from previous definitions, that aims to specify and operationalize key relationships and tasks. He defines it as

the formal provision, by approved supervisors, of a relationship based education and training that is work focused and which manages, supports, develops, and evaluates the work of colleague/s. It therefore differs from related activities, such as mentoring and therapy, by incorporating an evaluative component and being obligatory. The main methods that supervisors use are corrective feedback on the supervisees’ performance, teaching and collaborative goal‐setting. (Milne, 2009, p. 15)

Both of the above definitions of supervision place a clear emphasis on the SR; however, there are limited definitions of the SR itself within the literature. These will now be reviewed in more detail, followed by our own working definition of the SR.

Bordin (1983) developed a working alliance model, the supervisory working alliance (SWA), defined as a mutual agreement on the goals and tasks of supervision and the bonds that develop between the supervisor and supervisee. He described supervision as a “collaboration for change,” which provides a developmental context for the supervisee, the supervisor, and their work. Bordin’s definition has been widely applied and the SWA has been accepted across many modalities of supervision. As we shall see in Chapter 2, it has also received a fair amount of research support. However, as the SWA is a direct translation from his psychotherapy working alliance model (Bordin, 1979), it may not fully reflect the complexity of supervision and how the SR differs from a psychotherapy relationship. The SR may include a working alliance between supervisor and supervisee, but it is also likely to include additional relational, educational, and contextual aspects (Beinart, 2014).

Holloway (1995, pp. 41–42) provided a more detailed definition of the SR. “The relationship is a container of a dynamic process in which supervisor and supervisee negotiate a personal way of using a structure of power and involvement that accommodates the supervisee’s progression of learning.” The SR is seen as developing through phases (beginning, middle, and end), changing over time, and being organized through a supervision contract. Holloway’s model is one of the few that addresses power within the SR and that positions the development of the SR as central to broad contextual factors (supervisee, supervisor, client, and institution) and to the tasks and functions of supervision. This model will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

Bernard and Goodyear (2014, p. 64) define the SR as

the supervision participants’ attitudes and feelings towards each other and the way in which those attitudes and feelings are expressed. The supervision relationship, an eminently triadic affair, encompasses such variables as the supervision alliance, attachment style, supervisory style, parallel process and personality factors.

This definition shows a clear understanding of the breadth and complexity of the SR. However, it assumes a three‐person interaction between client, therapist/supervisee, and supervisor that places it very much within a therapy context. It is clear that supervision is a dyadic interaction where there is mutual influence between supervisor and supervisee. The supervisee is pivotal in selecting the work that they present to the supervisor. This work may be about an individual client, in which case the interaction may be triadic. However, many supervision issues are much broader than one‐to‐one therapy and may include work with families, teams, and, indeed, whole organizations – there are multiple contextual factors that influence the SR and the room is often very crowded. Additionally, supervision content may include aspects of work that are not directly therapeutic, for example, teaching, research, managing conflict with other staff, and reflective personal/professional development of the supervisee. Interestingly, a recent paper on the SR (Tangen & Borders, 2016) suggests that the complexity of the SR makes it difficult to conceptualize clearly.

Our own working definition, based on our research on the unique qualities of the SR, is as follows:

The SR is a collaborative, mutual working relationship, which supports and challenges the supervisee to learn and develop their professional practice. The relationship is developmental, needs‐focused, open, and respectful. It is normally hierarchical and involves the negotiation of power. It has many functions including education, monitoring and/or evaluation, and support. The SR is influenced by multiple contextual factors including those contributed by the supervisory dyad (or group), the working context, and the wider sociocultural context. The relationship is bound by the ethics of safe practice, and acknowledges difference and diversity in order to allow the supervisee to safely disclose and explore their professional dilemmas. Key tasks in establishing and developing the relationship are contracting and feedback.

Why Is the Supervisory Relationship Important?

Interestingly, supervision research has lagged behind therapy research despite almost all therapy trials requiring supervision, at the very least, to ensure adherence to the agreed treatment protocols. The focus of research has, understandably, been on client outcomes in a range of different interventions offered (e.g., anxiety and cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]). It has been assumed that supervision is necessary for effective treatments, but its contribution to clinical outcome has been difficult to measure, and there is currently only a small body of research. (e.g., Bambling, King, Raue, Schweitzer, & Lambert, 2006).

The importance of the supervisory alliance was noted nearly 50 years ago (Watkins, 2014a) but until recently there has not been solid enough evidence to support this. However, in recent years, best evidence points to the SR as the mutative factor in the development of effective supervision (Beinart, 2014; Watkins, 2014a); in particular, the development of a safe and supportive relationship has been shown to facilitate supervisee learning and development in a number of areas (see Chapter 3 for further discussion). Our research has focused particularly on the unique aspects of the SR that contribute to effectiveness. We have begun to unpick the contributions of supervisee and supervisor to the SR and to understand the importance of context to this relationship. We have used both qualitative and quantitative research methods to identify what it is about the SR that makes it work well and less well. It has become clear over the years that we have been doing this research, alongside supporting multiple SRs (as tutors on a doctoral training program in clinical psychology) and working within our own SRs, that there are certain elements that must be in place for these rather unusual relat...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Table of Contents
• About the Authors
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Part I: Effective Supervisory Relationships
• Part II: Effective Supervisory Relationships
• Endnote
• Appendix 1: The Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ)
• Appendix 2: The Short Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (S-SRQ)
• Appendix 3: The Supervisory Relationship Measure (SRM)
• References
• Index
• End User License Agreement