Discovering Your Supervisory Style
By Kimberly Brisebois

Supervisory style is a term that is often used to define characteristics of an individual supervisory personality. It is often generalized, rarely defined and often taken for granted (Munson, 2002). It is a concept that should spark some reflection for supervisors. Understanding the use of self in supervision is just as important as self-awareness for our workers. By evaluating and understanding our own values, techniques, and interactions with workers, we can increase our effectiveness as supervisors. Supervisory styles can affect one’s relationship with their supervisor and can be a critical factor in one’s job satisfaction. Munson (2002) has characterized two main styles, active or reactive. Which one are you? Take a minute to answer the following questions:

1. Do you ask pointed questions?
2. Do you give direct advice?
3. Do you offer interpretations?
4. Are you problem focused?
5. Do you explore alternative interventions?
6. Do you focus on client/family dynamics?
7. Are you speculative about outcomes?
8. Are you subdued during supervision?
9. Do you ask limited questions?
10. Do you focus on the process of treatment?
11. Do you explore issues about interaction?
12. Do you allow workers to struggle with their own solutions?
13. Do you focus on worker dynamics?

If you answered “yes” to questions 1-7, you have more of an active style. The active supervisor is very direct and pointed with questions and information. The process of active supervision is primarily lead by the supervisor. The worker is given information freely through an expedited process. If you answered “yes” to questions 8-13, you have more of a reactive style. The reactivist promotes that the worker’s learning comes from within. The worker is an active participant and is expected to make her own suggestions for change.

There is no style that is better than the other, it is merely a way of acting. Depending upon the worker’s preference, certain workers may respond better to one style over another. Despite your style, it is important that consistent, scheduled supervision occurs. Simply maintaining an “open door policy” is not conducive to learning. Impromptu supervision is often crisis driven and short in duration. This type of supervision does not promote quality decisions nor does it challenge the worker’s learning. In addition, the element of trust between the supervisor and worker needs to be ingrained in the working relationship. Trust in a superior is born out of the provision of consistent support and competence in the supervisor/ supervisee relationship (Kadushin and Harkness, 2002).

Once you have determined your main supervisory style, you can identify with a certain sub-style. Munson (2002) has identified three sub-styles of supervisors - philosophers, theoreticians and technicians. You may find that you do not always fit perfectly into these styles, and you may find variations; however, over time you should be able to identify a pattern.

The philosopher tends to be more abstract in her thinking. “A philosophy of practice is a belief system that guides a person’s activity” (Munson, 2002, p.212). This style can be helpful in supervision, but only when it is not a consistent pattern of supervisory interaction. Philosophies should be brief and pointed. It is helpful for the worker to be given the time to relate such philosophy to her casework. Philosophers need to be cognizant of their tendency to be overly abstract and lengthy in their discussions if those discussion have no immediate value to the worker.

The supervisor that tends to use theory and broader practice implications as the primary focus in supervision is known as the theoretician. (Munson, 2002). Understanding theory is believed to translate into gaining a better understanding for future work. Theory can provide a useful schema that helps to understand family dynamics (Germain and Gitterman,1996). It is important that the theoretician does not remain in discussions of abstract theory, but rather uses these theories to relate them directly to specific cases. Connecting and translating theory to practice is of utmost importance for workers. Learning a theory and applying the theory are two different tasks (Munson, 2002). By ensuring that both of these tasks are discussed in supervision, the supervisor is providing the worker with a practical approach to her work with families, while ensuring that she is grounded in her thinking.

The supervisor that uses a technical strategy is mostly problem focused. The technician is patient and empathic. The technician may be more likely to allow the worker to vent regarding her negative feelings about difficult clients. This can be helpful to the worker so that she understands and accepts that her reactions are normal. “The supervisor reduces stress by normalizing unprofessional feelings, noting that workers may often feel negative or critical about some clients” (Kadushin et al, 2002, p. 251). The technician can also be viewed as demanding (Munson, 2002). Supervision is based on planning intervention strategies and focuses mostly on future strategies rather than discussions of family history. Technicians can tend to tell the worker what to do instead of allowing the worker to maneuver through on her own. While this style can work well with the novice worker, the worker with more experience may come to resent not being given the opportunity for more autonomy.

It is important for supervisors to maintain an open dialogue with workers about their supervisory style, and to be open to feedback. This dialogue should include aspects of supervisory style that are beneficial or hindering to each individual worker. A good place to start could be during the worker’s annual performance evaluation, however these discussions should occur on an ongoing basis. Being knowledgeable about the types of styles that are different from your own can assist you in modifying those aspects of your approach that may not be conducive for certain workers. Be open to feedback and willing to accept constructive criticism. It is through this process of self-evaluation and analysis that you can ensure that your role as a supervisor is a contributing factor to that worker’s success and longevity in child welfare.

About the Author:

Kimberly Brisebois is the Family Service Supervisor at Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society.

References

Germain, C., and Gitterman, A. (1996). The Life Model of Social Work Practice, (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Kadushin, A., and Harkness, D. (2002). Supervision in Social Work (4 th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Munson, C. (2002). Handbook of Clinical Social Work Supervision (3 rd ed.). New York: The Haworth Press.

Previous article: KARE Plan - Health and Dental Benefits for Children in Care

Next article: OACAS Roll Out of Care Welfare Professional Curriculum (Formerly Known as New Worker Training Series)