How we define supervision shapes our expectations of ourselves and others in supervision sessions and the expectations of our development as supervisors and support available for this. There are many other possible definitions for seeing supervision with slightly different lenses. Most stress joint goals of benefiting practitioners and by doing so people who use services and their carers.
Of course there are many types of supervision and professional development activities that connect to organisational learning cultures including line management, clinical, coaching, mentoring and various types of group work, which should be covered in basic training for supervisors. In the training and capacity building I deliver, I feel that it's important to also share the basics with supervisees so they can take equal responsibility. Without training and equal buy in, you can expect to encounter problems, inconsistencies, a lack of quality and evidence in your processes and potential damage for supervisors, practitioners and ultimately the people and families who access services.
I'll cover much of this in further posts. There are also many models, goals and modes that weave through the different activities, but for 1:1 supervision, the following is is one of the most helpful definitions;
“Supervision is a joint endeavour in which a practitioner, with the help of a supervisor, attends to their clients, themselves as part of their client-practitioner relationships and the wider systemic and ecological contexts, and by so doing improves the quality of their work, transforms their client relationships, continuously develops themselves, their practice and the wider profession”.
(Hawkins & Shohet, 2012 p.60)
Theoretical Origins: Kolb’s experiential learning cycle
The learning cycle underpins much of the theory of supervision and professional development in social work. It involves four stages, namely: concrete learning, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. (Kolb, 1984).
From the 1980s, building on this, various writers developed these ideas to inform supervision. This included influential work by Tony Morrison who set out the supervision cycle in the graphic below (2001). Models were set out to support helping professionals improve supervision practice, naming the different processes and roles involved.
While Kolb had a learning styles inventory one of the most popular expressions of learning styles was Honey and Mumford (1992), who developed four learning styles. The four styles relate to preferences for the above parts of the supervision cycle:
Experience – Activist style
Reflection – Reflector style
Analysis – Theorist style
Action Plans – Pragmatist style
Each learning style will have favourable and unfavourable activities:
Activists may favour new experiences and activities including role play, short term tasks and being thrown in at the deep end. They may be less likely to learn from lectures, reading, observing, analysing data, prescribed activities and frequent repetition.
Reflectors may favour activities where they can observe other people first, being given preparation and discussion time and audiovisual aids. They may be less likely to learn from role-playing in front of others, being ‘thrown in’ and having to make shortcuts due to time pressures.
Theorists may favour situations where they have to think through complex analyses, a clear purpose, interesting tasks regardless of relevance to the role and accessing models and theories. They may be less likely to learn from unstructured situations and decision making without a policy context and with complex emotional overtones.
Pragmatists may favour exercises where there is high relevance to their role, situations where the implementation is as important as the learning content, creating action plans and learning from coaches and mentors. They may be less likely to learn from situations with no clear goal or reward and learning from people outside their field.
Ideally, over time we adopt skills, that may come less naturally at first, as we learn from colleagues, supervisors and people who use services.
The learning cycle and the above learning styles can be harmonised to create a visual map of preferences in supervision and reflective practice.
Suggested follow up activities –
Write a paragraph about;
Where you fit in the above continuum?
Either using this or another model: reflect on your strengths.
Do you think your styles have changed over time?
All the best, Alistair (he/him)
Hawkins, P, Shohet, R. et al. (2012). Supervision in the helping professions. London: McGraw Hill.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A., (1992). The manual of learning styles. 3rd edn. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.
Kolb,D.A., (1984). Experiential Learning. New York: Prentice Hall.
Morrison, T. (2001) Staff Supervision in Social Care. London: Pavilion.
