reflective essay on supervision

Reflections on Supervision

• Published: 22 July 2019
• Volume 79 , pages 265–283, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Otto F. Kernberg 1  

437 Accesses

10 Citations

Explore all metrics

This paper explores basic tasks involved in the supervisory process, and frequent problems in carrying out these tasks. Basic tasks include clarification of mutual expectations of supervisor and supervisee; the establishment of mutual trust as fundamental for countertransference analysis; “parallel process” exploration and clarification of explicit and implicit theoretical assumptions by both supervisor and supervisee. Frequent problems include the extent of initial evaluation of patients; problems of intervening “without memory or desire”; transference and countertransference diagnoses and interpretive consequences; clarification of affective dominance; interventive shifts with severe psychopathology, and realistic goals of patient, supervisee and supervisor. Limitations to supervision include specific psychopathologies, cognitive limitations, and a generally restricted capacity for empathy by the supervisee.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Soul of Therapy: The Therapist’s Use of Self in the Therapeutic Relationship

What Is Leadership?

Empathy in patient care: from ‘clinical empathy’ to ‘empathic concern’.

Arlow, J. A. (1963). The supervisory situation. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 11, 576–594.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baudry, F. D. (1993). The personal dimension and management of the supervisory situation with a special note on the parallel process. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 62, 588–614.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bion, W. R. (1967). Notes on memory and desire. Psychoanalytic Forum, 2 (272–273), 279–290.

Google Scholar  

Blomfield, O. (1985). Psychoanalytic supervision—An overview. International Review of Psycho-Analysis, 12, 401–409.

Greenberg, L. (1997). On transference and countertransference and the technique of supervision. In B. Martindale, M. Möner, M. E. C. Rodriguez, J.-P. Vidit, et al. (Eds.), Supervision and its vicissitudes (pp. 1–24). London: Karnac Books.

Kernberg, O. F. (2010). Psychoanalytic supervision: The supervisor’s tasks. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 79, 603–627.

Kernberg, O. F. (2018). The denial of reality. Treatment of severe personality disorders: Resolution of aggression and recovery of eroticism (pp. 251–263). New York Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

Tuckett, D. (2005). Does anything go? Toward a framework for the more transparent assessment of psychoanalytic competence. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 86, 31–49.

Yerushalmi, H. (2019). On the presence and absence of supervisors. American Journal of Psychoanalysis . https://doi.org/10.1057/s11231-019-09207-0 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Personality Disorders Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital - Westchester Division, 21 Bloomingdale Road, White Plains, NY, 10605, USA

Otto F. Kernberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Otto F. Kernberg .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Otto F. Kernberg, M. D, Professor of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College.

Address correspondence to: Otto F. Kernberg, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Director, Personality Disorders Institute, New York Presbyterian Hospital - Westchester Division, 21 Bloomingdale Rd., White Plains, NY, 10605, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kernberg, O.F. Reflections on Supervision. Am J Psychoanal 79 , 265–283 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s11231-019-09197-z

Download citation

Published : 22 July 2019

Issue Date : 01 September 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s11231-019-09197-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• bilateral supervisory openness
• countertransference analysis
• repetition compulsion
• parallel process
• affective dominance
• transference analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About The British Journal of Social Work
• About the British Association of Social Workers
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Strengths and limitations, conclusions, implications and future research, ethical approval, acknowledgements.

• < Previous

A Rapid Review of Reflective Supervision in Social Work

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Jermaine M Ravalier, Paulina Wegrzynek, Annabel Mitchell, John McGowan, Paula Mcfadden, Caroline Bald, A Rapid Review of Reflective Supervision in Social Work, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 53, Issue 4, June 2023, Pages 1945–1962, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcac223

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Reflective supervision (RS) is a crucial component of social work practice but little is known about how RS works within the UK context and what the outcomes of RS are for social workers and their service users. A rapid literature review comprised searching four databases for academic and grey literature on the topic of social work RS. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the University College London’s literature assessment method were employed in an expedited quality appraisal for all included papers. Twenty-seven papers were included. Findings suggest that a supportive, available manager or a peer-group enables reflective practice. Regularity of supervisory sessions and acknowledgement of a social worker’s autonomy are seen as enablers of reflexivity. In contrast, task-oriented approach that is overly focused on accountability and hindered by the sparsity of resources proves problematic for both social workers and service users. Whilst theoretical papers were available, RS was not defined in a uniform fashion and there was limited evidence pertaining to supervisory practice. More research focusing on what works and what improvements are needed in RS, including adopting a participatory approach would help to bridge this gap and further inform policy and practice.

Supervision has been referred to as the ‘cornerstone’ of good social work practice ( Laming, 2009 ) and its reflective element is a crucial component to the social work experience. Munson (2002) suggested that social work supervision contributes to society by encouraging social reform and improving client advocacy. With social workers having a key role in supporting some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people across the globe ( Ravalier et al. , 2020 ), reflective supervision (RS) should support well-being and improve practice, ensuring better outcomes both for the individual social worker and the service users that they work with and for ( Morelen et al. , 2022 ). However, whilst the social work profession has been facing a significant increase in job demands, including workload responsibilities and high levels of stress ( Hussein, 2018 ), RS is significantly lacking in both quality and quantity across the social work profession, being described as a ‘tick box’ or not taking place at all ( Ravalier, 2019 ).

Social Work England (2022) have written RS into the professional standards for the profession to inform social work practice. This regular ‘protected time with their manager’ should be used to discuss and evaluate social workers’ responsibilities and the impact of work on their well-being ( Social Work England, 2020 ) to help to ameliorate endemic stress and burnout ( McFadden, 2020 ). The need for provision of regular and ‘sufficient’ supervision is emphasised for social work students as well ( The College of Social Work, 2012 ). However, reports suggest that delivery of supervision varies significantly across England ( Department for Children, School and Families [DCSF], 2009 ). According to the British Association of Social Workers’ ( BASW, 2011 ) commissioned report, weekly supervision is received by 0.7 per cent of social workers, with only around 59 per cent receiving it once a month. The same report suggested that the majority (70.6 per cent) of social workers would like to have monthly supervisory sessions and only 55.2 per cent of social workers were satisfied the frequency of their supervision. The latter varies between social workers in Child and Adult Services, with contextual reasons such as the Social Work Task Force ( Social Work Task Force, 2009 ) review of children’s social work in England contributing to these differences.

RQ1: What does best practice for social work supervision look like? RQ2: Why supervision doesn’t happen and what to do to make it happen? RQ3: How supervision impacts social worker well-being and service user outcome?

The current review aims to update our knowledge of the UK and Ireland social care supervisory processes and adds a novel focus on RS. It was undertaken in order to inform best practice RS in social work, understand barriers to RS across the profession and provide an overview of the impacts of RS on social workers and service users. In order to do so, we undertook a rapid literature review of existing academic and grey literature. Ethical approval was not sought as no data collection was required.

‘social work’ AND (‘supervision’ OR ‘management’ OR ‘leadership’ OR ‘mentoring’) AND (‘reflective’ OR ‘reflective practice’ OR ‘critical reflection’ OR ‘best practice’)

These search terms were developed in consultation with social work professionals as part of a wider participatory research approach, where an external panel reviewed a list of terms proposed by the research team and amended it accordingly to reflect terms that they would expect to see based on their using such terms in their work or having read about in the academic literature. A librarian at the host institution assisted with formatting the final search strategy. The identified papers were assessed by P.W. and A.M. for relevance to the review at title, abstract and full-text. Figure 1 summarises the study selection process. Reference lists of the included papers were not searched and an expedited quality appraisal was completed to account for the rapid review methods ( Plüddemann et al. , 2018 ). Quality assessment criteria for empirical studies were adopted from the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) ( Hong et al. , 2018 ). Non-empirical papers were assessed using University College London’s (2021) test for evaluating resources. The protocol ( Wegrzynek et al. , 2021 ) was drafted a priori, uploaded to the Open Science Framework and all protocol amendments have been recorded.

PRISMA flow—selection of papers for the review. Source : Adopted from Page et al. (2021) .

Types of studies included

The search returned 950 results which were screened and 27 papers were included (see Supplementary File S1 ). Table 1 shows the inter-rater agreement ( McHugh, 2012 ). The types of included studies comprised: a literature review ( Wilkins, 2017 ), theoretical papers ( Bradbury-Jones, 2013 ; Ingram, 2013 ; Kelly and Green, 2020 ), ethnographic studies ( Ruch, 2007 ; Ferguson, 2018 ), a mixed methods study ( Wilson, 2013 ), a multi-method study ( Manthorpe et al. , 2015 ), small-scale qualitative (case) studies ( Bingle and Middleton, 2019 ; Bourn and Hafford-Letchfield, 2011 ; Graham and Killick, 2019 ; Staempfli and Fairtlough, 2019 ), a qualitative part of a pilot quasi-experimental study ( Pitt et al. , 2021 ), a small-scale collaborative knowledge exchange study ( Turney and Ruch, 2018 ), action research projects ( Dempsey et al. , 2008 ; Wilkins et al. , 2017 ), papers describing training programmes ( Lawlor, 2013 ; White, 2015 ; Dugmore et al. , 2018 ; action learning— Ward, 2013 ; Patterson, 2017 ), an interpretive case study ( Harlow, 2016 ), a cross-sectional survey ( Cleak et al. , 2016 ), surveys ( Hunt et al. , 2016 ; Bunce et al. , 2019 ), a (theory-oriented) case study ( Harvey and Henderson, 2014 ) and one non-academic article ( Peet, 2011 ).

Inter-rater agreement

When this information was provided, the majority of the literature considered child protection social work (sixteen papers). Four papers included social work students as their population. There was a mixture of current and older sources. Due to heterogeneity of the included literature findings, the results have been summarised narratively.

Quality assessment

Ten of the included papers (seven qualitative, one quantitative and two mixed-methods) were judged to be of high quality ( Table 2 ). Factors affecting the quality ratings included vague of descriptions pertaining to Q3, Q4 and Q5. Eleven articles were not empirical papers (e.g. theoretical) and thus did not meet the screening questions for the MMAT Tool ( Hong et al. , 2018 ). This was expected due to the broad inclusion criteria for the review and those articles were assessed ( University College London, 2021 ) as high, including on accuracy ( n  = 8) and providing information that is current ( n  = 5) and relevant to the review ( n  = 11).

Notes : SQ1: Are there clear research questions? SQ2: Do the collected data allow to address the research questions? Q1: Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question? Q2: Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? Q3: Are the findings adequately derived from the data? Q4: Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data? Q5: Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation? Q1: Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question? Q2: Is the sample representative of the target population? Q3: Are the measurements appropriate? Q4: Is the risk of nonresponse bias low? Q5: Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question? Q1: Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? Q2: Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? Q3: Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? Q4: Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? Q5: Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? Q1: Currency. Q2: Relevance. Q3: Authority. Q4: Accuracy. Q5: Purpose.

Conceptualising RS and best practice

There is a notable lack of specificity in how RS is conceptualised. For example, in the reviewed literature, ‘reflective practice’ places emphasis on the individual social worker whilst ‘RS’ seems to concern both, the social worker and their supervisor. As such, the two terms can be seen to refer to processes with somewhat different characteristics, although Kelly and Green (2020) use the terms interchangeably. Reflective teaching and learning is another way of engaging in RS, particularly in social work training. Uncertainty with regards to defining reflective practice was reported by undergraduate social work students ( Wilson, 2013 ), which suggests that the issue of the lack of agreed definition of the nature of supervision persists from the early stages of a social worker practitioner’s career. The issue of this lack of specificity pertaining supervision practice had previously been noted elsewhere ( Carpenter et al. , 2012 ). In the current review, Wilkins (2017) argued that case management is the only format of supervision that has ever been delivered in social work, although it has to be noted that the author based his conclusions on a ‘selective’ literature review (p. 4). Interestingly, Pitt et al. (2021) found that a more ‘managerial’, case management approach to supervision and its focus on accountability is not uniformly perceived as negative by social workers or their supervisors. Importantly however, the above issues make summarising the literature and answering the research questions set by the review challenging from the onset.

Barriers to RS

Supervision practices within social work underwent regulatory changes that, according to the reviewed papers, have led to an over-expansion of administrative tasks and task-oriented organisational culture ( Bradbury-Jones, 2013 ; Ward, 2013 ; Wilson, 2013 ; Pitt et al. , 2021 ). Peet (2011) noted how case (resource) management interferes with adoption of a reflective lens in supervisory encounters, with others highlighting issues around its singular focus on accountability ( Pitt et al. , 2021 ). Pressures linked to funding, resources (including time constraints; Dempsey et al. , 2008 ; Peet, 2011 ; Pitt et al. , 2021 ) and focusing on meeting managed care requirements ( Manthorpe et al. , 2015 ) result in ‘rational’ models of supervision. Practicing supervision in this way often conflates performance management with recognising the needs of the staff ( Bourn and Hafford-Letchfield, 2011 ). This fails to acknowledge the broader needs of the social work practitioners such as their affective factors ( Bradbury-Jones, 2013 ; Wilkins et al. , 2017 ) and autonomy ( Kelly and Green, 2020 ). Manthorpe et al. (2015) argued that reflection is perceived as an ‘optional extra’ within supervision, even for the newly qualified social workers. Individual reflections about the emotional aspects of social work may sometimes be constrained by challenging/frightening situations encountered by the workers ( Ferguson, 2018 ).

The lack of/limitations of supervision training for social work managers affect their confidence and motivation to (begin to) deliver RS ( Bourn and Hafford-Letchfield, 2011 ; Lawlor, 2013 ; Wilkins et al. , 2017 ; Turney and Ruch, 2018 ). Stakeholders often seem apprehensive of the ‘unknown’ ( Dugmore et al. , 2018 ) and ‘getting started’ ( Turney and Ruch, 2018 ) with the process of RS often proves challenging. Furthermore, inheriting supervision approach from predecessors may be an obstacle to adopting reflective approach if the supervision model being passed down is not reflective ( Wilkins et al. , 2017 ). Interestingly, Wilkins (2017) noted how beyond England, a single supervisor does not tend to supervise a group of social workers, which in turn may help to facilitate the supervisory process more effectively and accounts for human factors. In a theoretical paper, Kelly and Green (2020) noted that, within health care, RS does not include social workers as they are not seen as part of the health-based response when issues of child protection arise. Finally, White (2015) highlighted challenges of technology-mediated supervision, for example, lack of IT skills and not offering insight into the worker–service user relationship.

Enablers of RS

Managers (and practice teachers for social work students) are seen as facilitators of reflective practice ( Ruch, 2007 ; Wilson, 2013 ) and a good relationship between a supervisor and a social worker is pertinent to the success of the interactional supervisory process ( Harlow, 2016 ). Pitt et al. (2021) found that flexibility and an ‘open door policy’ with supervisors allow social workers to benefit from a more needs-based supervision. Patterson (2017) suggested that peer and group supervision could be adopted in parallel or instead of the ‘traditional’ one-to-one sessions, with findings from Bingle and Middleton (2019) supporting the importance of group case discussions in promoting reflexivity. Lawlor (2013) found that reflective practice training sessions increase supervisors’ delivery of and workers’ engagement with such strategies, respectively. Staempfli and Fairtlough (2019) noted a need for regular supervision, which in their paper took a form of a peer-led, tutor-supported supervision (‘intervision’) for social work students. Enabling a more reflexive approach was also linked to outsourcing the task of providing RS to account for strained internal resources and high workloads ( Pitt et al. , 2021 ).

Outcomes for social workers

Effective supervision encourages an atmosphere of trust and a feeling of peer support ( Ruch, 2007 ; Dempsey et al. , 2008 ; Dugmore et al. , 2018 ; Pitt et al. , 2021 ). Good supervision has a therapeutic effect ( Ingram, 2013 ; Graham and Killick, 2019 ; Pitt et al. , 2021 ) and enables a discussion of affective factors and the development of workers’ capacity to consciously engage in internal forms of reflexivity ( Dempsey et al. , 2008 ; Wilkins, 2017 ; Ferguson, 2018 ). Harvey and Henderson (2014) suggested that RS aids with managing ways to maintain safety of social workers facing challenging encounters with the service users and Graham and Killick (2019) noted its ability to address stress and support resilience. Reflexivity supports learning from one’s mistakes, improving job skills ( Wilson, 2013 ) and challenging own biases ( Bradbury-Jones, 2013 ; Staempfli and Fairtlough, 2019 ). Whilst supervision offers social workers a chance to consider things from another perspective, Pitt et al. (2021) found that from both social workers’ and supervisors’ perspective, reflection is often a missing element within the supervisory process. For newly qualified social workers, supervision affects engagement with work ( Manthorpe et al. , 2015 ). Similarly, Cleak et al. (2016) suggested that supervision is linked to regularity with which social work students engage with learning. Whilst supervision can aid stress management ( Graham and Killick, 2019 ) and worker retention, when a manager’s supervision responsibilities apply to multiple social workers the process may lose its supportive effect ( Wilkins, 2017 ). Wilkins (2017) noted a distinction between RS and ‘good’ support more generally, suggesting that by overly focusing on the former one neglects the latter. Graham and Killick (2019) found that supervision session promoted staff resilience. Contrastingly, amongst undergraduate social work students in Bunce et al. ’s (2019) study, reflective ability was not a predictor of resilience or psychological distress. Whilst reflective ability is not the same as RS, it would arguably be linked to reflective practice.

Outcomes for service users

One of the research questions for the current review referred to the impact of RS on service users; however, these outcomes were not highlighted directly by the reviewed literature. Benefits (or otherwise) for the service users were referred to indirectly, for example, by reporting social work professionals’ self-assessment of the service they were able to provide (reduced quality) ( Hunt et al. , 2016 ) and their relationship with the service users having a potential to be more productive ( Harvey and Henderson, 2014 ; Wilkins, 2017 ). Good reflective support and supervision for social work practitioners is vital in assessing circumstances of their service users ( Pitt et al. , 2021 ) and enables client-centred practice. As such, a full understanding of the service user outcomes from multi-stakeholder perspective is lacking and, somewhat alarmingly, this echoes Carpenter et al. ’s (2012) findings.

The current rapid review considered evidence pertaining to RS for social workers in the UK. This approach updates our knowledge of the UK social care supervisory processes and adds a novel focus on RS. Identified literature was limited and highlighted issues around inconsistent definition of reflection in the context of social work supervisory practice. Nevertheless, a supportive, available manager or a peer-group, who remove a myopic lens by providing separate insight into a case/experience facilitate best practice (RQ1 and RQ3). Regularity of supervisory sessions and acknowledgement of a social worker’s autonomy are seen as enablers of reflexivity. In contrast, task-oriented approach that is overly focused on accountability and hindered by the sparsity of resources proves problematic for both social workers and service users (RQ2). When RS is delivered effectively, it serves broad functions of practice evaluation (e.g. Bradbury-Jones, 2013 ), work/study engagement ( Manthorpe et al. , 2015 ; Cleak et al. , 2016 ) and managing stress ( Graham and Killick, 2019 ) that is often experienced by the social work staff ( Hussein, 2018 ). Whilst the literature did not include direct evaluation of the user outcomes, RS is seen by social workers as a contributing factor in achieving more client-centred practice (e.g. Pitt et al. , 2021 ; RQ3).

Wilkins (2017) argued that a significant proportion of child and family social work local authorities in England do not currently implement RS. Interestingly, Pitt et al. (2021) argue that supervision can sometimes be reflective without stakeholders interpreting it as such. This, the authors suggest, is achieved through provision of a secondary, supervisor’s perspective on a topic being discussed with a social worker. Such conceptualisation of reflection ( Tsang, 2005 ) makes it feasible to suggest that there is a middle ground between strict case management-type supervision and reflective supervisory practice (e.g. as seen in Morrison’s model of reflection; Morrison, 2009 ) that provides elements of critical and/or creative thinking (RQ2).

There was a common theme running through the reviewed literature pertaining to the need of RS to allow social workers to engage with the emotional side of their practice (both positive and negative), whilst providing a safe space and a supervisory relationship to do so ( Ingram, 2013 ). Arguably, this kind of process may be challenging at times due to human (e.g. supervisor–supervisee conflict) and environmental (e.g. pressures and expectations linked to caseloads and procedures) factors. Addressing the ‘uneasy alliance’ encountered in supervision, Ingram (2013 , p. 17) proposed a model of co-created approach to RS that aims to dovetail emotional and procedural elements of social work practice and signposts to the national codes of practice as additional forms of support.

Importantly, becoming an ‘experienced facilitator’ of RS (e.g. Cleak et al. , 2016 ) emphasises the importance of training supervisors to perform this role effectively. Hawkins and Smith (2006) referred to ‘self-supervision’ as means of reflecting about supervising others. The issues in defining RS depicted by the reviewed literature highlight the complexity of the task faced by the supervisors to deliver this crucial element of social work practice, particularly when paired with a lack of training to support the delivery of the broad functions subscribed to supervisory sessions. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has redefined the ways of working and the availability of support for both supervisors and their staff ( Social Work England, 2020 ). Therefore, addressing the need for appropriate support mechanisms (e.g. training sessions or alternative modes of supervision delivery such as peer-group supervision) seems key to enabling the provision and receipt of RS, as supported by the reviewed literature (e.g. Lawlor, 2013 ; Patterson, 2017 ). Relatedly, the current review found evidence that group supervision can be beneficial (e.g. Bingle and Middleton, 2019 ), or seen as complementary ( Patterson, 2017 ) versus conventional on-to-one format. Utilising inter-vision (e.g. by including social workers in health-based, multidisciplinary response to child protection) is an approach adopted elsewhere but not practiced in the UK ( Kelly and Green, 2020 ). However, the review supports expanding the term ‘experienced facilitator’ (of RS) to incorporate the ‘group mode’, providing the regularity of supervision sessions is maintained ( Staempfli and Fairtlough, 2019 ).

To maximise the benefits of RS (e.g. Cleak et al. , 2016 ), the policy-makers should also ensure that the emphasis to embed RS training is clear at the point of students obtaining their social work practice education (RQ2). Published evaluations of past training programmes suggested a lack of specificity in adopted techniques and terminology (e.g. coach versus mentor; Harlow, 2016 ). However, as long as the aim of the training initiatives remains to improve the overall skill set of the supervisors/staff to enhance RS practice, blending of terms is arguably less problematic providing that effective communication remains the key facilitator within the process ( Lawlor, 2013 ). Furthermore, White (2015) argued that there is not one approach to supervision as it needs to be attuned to individuals. As such, if the frequency and the quality of supervision increase as a result of supervisors receiving adequate training, it is reasonable to assume its positive effect on staff retention and thus designing and implementing such programmes would be an investment worth considering (e.g. Chiller and Crisp, 2012 ).

Whilst several theoretical models conceptualise supervision, evidence of their outcomes and cost-effectiveness is lacking ( Carpenter et al. , 2012 ). Furthermore, the reviewed literature reflects varied approach to RS but there is a clear absence of evidence relating to its effects on social work service users. As such, there is rationale to include the input of service users in the RS process and by that enable a multi-stakeholder voice to be heard, albeit the need for transparency within reflective practice is intertwined with professional boundaries and acknowledgement of ethical issues (e.g. Peet, 2011 ). In addition, as supervision is facilitated (or otherwise) by organisational stakeholders as well, future studies engaging a wider group of stakeholders via participatory action research could further our understanding of RS best practice.

The current review was comprehensive and considered both academic and non-academic literature to enhance the relevance of the findings for the broad range of stakeholders, including the social workers and the policy-makers. Relatedly, a significant problem faced in the current work was that the literature does not define RS in a uniform fashion and only a selection of empirical papers could be quality-assessed, which limits the strength of the conclusions made. Consultation with the social work advisory group when designing the search strategy facilitated inclusion of the literature that is relevant and supports our greater understanding of the processes involved in RS practice. Whilst the majority of the literature focused on social work supervision within Children Services and more research on RS within other types of social work is needed, the former may be explained by the emphasis to monitor Child Protection practice and social workers’ accountability as a result of past high-profile Child Protection cases.

Effective supervision enables social workers to develop personally and professionally; it is vital for helping to maintain their well-being, professional development, it enables management oversight as well as promoting the best outcomes for service users ( Stanley, 2018 ). However, the current state of evidence pertaining to RS for social workers, including details of what works and what improvements are needed, is limited. Theoretical papers are available but there is limited evidence pertaining to supervisory practice. Implications from the current review include the need for further research adopting participatory action research approach ( Reason and Bradbury, 2008 ) that would help to bridge this gap whilst encouraging stakeholder participation.

Not applicable.

The authors thank Melissa Hamdani and Alice Wallace for their valuable input at the initial stages of this work. They would also like to thank the panel of social workers who gave up their time to contribute to a consultation that informed the creation of the list of key search terms for the current review.

There was no funding for this project.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at British Journal of Social Work Journal online.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Bingle L. , Middleton A. ( 2019 ) ‘ From doing to being: The tensions of systemic practice in social work—group reflective supervision in child protection ’, Journal of Family Therapy , 41 ( 3 ), pp. 384 – 406 .

Google Scholar

Bourn D. , Hafford-Letchfield T. ( 2011 ) ‘ The role of social work professional supervision in conditions of uncertainty ’, The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Change Management: Annual Review , 10 ( 9 ), pp. 41 – 56 .

Bradbury-Jones C. ( 2013 ) ‘ Refocusing child protection supervision: An innovative approach to supporting practitioners ’, Child Care in Practice , 19 ( 3 ), pp. 253 – 66 .

Bradbury-Jones C. , Coleman D. , Davies H. , Ellison K. , Leigh C. ( 2010 ) ‘ Raised emotions: A critique of the Peshkin approach to reflection ’, Nurse Education Today , 30 ( 6 ), pp. 568 – 72 .

British Association of Social Workers . ( 2011 ) ‘ BASW/CoSW England Research on Social Work, with Particular Reference to Supervision Practice in Multi-Disciplinary Teams ’, available online at: https://www.basw.co.uk/system/files/resources/basw_13955-1_0.pdf (accessed April 2022).

Bunce L. , Lonsdale A. J. , King N. , Childs J. , Bennie R. ( 2019 ) ‘ Emotional intelligence and self-determined behaviour reduce psychological distress: Interactions with resilience in social work students in the UK ’, The British Journal of Social Work , 49 ( 8 ), pp. 2092 – 111 .

Carpenter J. , Webb C. , Bostock L. , Coomber C. ( 2012 ) Effective Supervision in Social Work and Social Care , Bristol , Social Care Institute for Excellence .

Chiller P. , Crisp B. R. ( 2012 ) ‘ Professional supervision: a workforce retention strategy for social work? ’, Australian Social Work , 65 ( 2 ), pp. 232 – 42 .

Cleak H. , Roulston A. , Vreugdenhil A. ( 2016 ) ‘ The inside story: A survey of social work students’ supervision and learning opportunities on placement ’, British Journal of Social Work , 46 ( 7 ), pp. 2033 – 50 .

Dempsey M. , Murphy M. , Halton C. ( 2008 ) ‘ Introducing tools of reflective learning into peer supervision groups in a social work agency ’, The Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning , 8 ( 2 ), pp. 25 – 43 .

Department for Children, School and Families (DCSF) . ( 2009 ) The Protection of Children in England—Action Plan: The Government’s Response to Lord Laming , London , TSO .

Google Preview

Dugmore P. , Partridge K. , Sethi I. , Krupa-Flasinska M. ( 2018 ) ‘ Systemic supervision in statutory social work in the UK: systemic rucksacks and bells that ring ’, European Journal of Social Work , 21 ( 3 ), pp. 400 – 14 .

Ferguson H. ( 2018 ) ‘ How social workers reflect in action and when and why they don’t: The possibilities and limits to reflective practice in social work ’, Social Work Education , 37 ( 4 ), pp. 415 – 27 .

Graham A. , Killick C. ( 2019 ) ‘ Developing team resilience to prevent burnout in statutory residential care ’, Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care , 18 ( 3 ), pp. 24 – 49 .

Harlow E. ( 2016 ) ‘ The management of children and family social workers in England: Reflecting upon the meaning and provision of support ’, Journal of Social Work , 16 ( 6 ), pp. 674 – 87 .

Harvey A. , Henderson F. ( 2014 ) ‘ Reflective supervision for child protection practice—reaching beneath the surface ’, Journal of Social Work Practice , 28 ( 3 ), pp. 343 – 56 .

Hawkins P. , Smith N. ( 2006 ) Coaching, Mentoring and Organizational Consultancy: Supervision and Development , Maidenhead , Open University Press .

Hong Q. N. , Pluye P. , Fàbregues S. , Bartlett G. , Boardmanm F. , Cargo M. , Dagenais P. , Gagnon M. P. , Griffiths F. , Nicolau B. , O’Cathain A. , Rousseau M. C. , Vedel I. ( 2018 ) Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) , Version 2018, Canadian Intellectual Property Office , Industry Canada .

Hunt S. , Goddard C. , Cooper J. , Littlechild B. , Wild J. ( 2016 ) ‘ If I feel like this, how does the child feel?’ Child protection workers, supervision, management and organisational responses to parental violence ’, Journal of Social Work Practice , 30 ( 1 ), pp. 5 – 24 .

Hussein S. ( 2018 ) ‘ Work engagement, burnout and personal accomplishments among social workers: A comparison between those working in children and adults’ services in England ’, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Health , 45 ( 6 ), pp. 911 – 23 .

Ingram R. ( 2013 ) ‘ Emotions, social work practice and supervision: An uneasy alliance? ’, Journal of Social Work Practice , 27 ( 1 ), pp. 5 – 19 .

Kadushin A. , Harkness D. ( 2014 ) Supervision in Social Work , New York , Columbia University Press .

Kelly S. , Green T. ( 2020 ) ‘ Seeing more, better sight: Using an interprofessional model of supervision to support reflective child protection practice within the health setting ’, The British Journal of Social Work , 50 ( 3 ), pp. 814 – 32 .

Kolb D. A. ( 1984 ) Experiential Learning , Englewood Cliffs, NJ , Prentice Hall .

Laming H. ( 2009 ) The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report , London , TSO .

McFadden P. ( 2020 ) ‘ Two sides of one coin? Relationships build resilience or contribute to burnout in child protection social work: Shared perspectives from Leavers and Stayers in Northern Ireland ’, International Social Work , 63 ( 2 ), pp. 164 – 76 .

Lawlor D. ( 2013 ) ‘ A transformation programme for children’s social care managers using an interactional and reflective supervision model to develop supervision skills ’, Journal of Social Work Practice , 27 ( 2 ), pp. 177 – 89 .

Manthorpe J. , Moriarty J. , Hussein S. , Stevens M. , Sharpe E. ( 2015 ) ‘ Content and purpose of supervision in social work practice in England: Views of newly qualified social workers, managers and directors ’, British Journal of Social Work , 45 ( 1 ), pp. 52 – 68 .

McHugh M. L. ( 2012 ) ‘ Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic ’, Biochemia Medica , 22 ( 3 ), pp. 276 – 82 .

Morelen D. , Najm J. , Wolff M. , Daniel K. ( 2022 ) ‘ Taking care of the caregivers: The moderating role of reflective supervision in the relationship between COVID-19 stress and the mental and professional wellbeing of the IECMH workforce ’, Infant Mental Health Journal , 43 ( 1 ), pp. 55 – 68 .

Morrison T. ( 2009 ) Supervision Guide for Social Workers , Leeds , Children’s Workforce Development Council .

Munson C. E. ( 2002 ) Handbook of Clinical Social Work Supervision . 3rd edn, New York, NY , Haworth Press .

Page M. J. , McKenzie J. E. , Bossuyt P. M. , Boutron I. , Hoffmann T.C. , Mulrow C. D. , Shamseer , L. , Tetzlaff , J.M. , Akl , E.A. , Brennan , S.E. , Chou , R. , Glanville , J. , Grimshaw , J.M. , Hrobjatsson , A. , Lalu , M.M. , Li , T. , Loder , E.W. , Mayo-Wilson , E. , McDonald , S. , McGuinness , L.A. , Stewart , L.A. , Thomas , J. , Tricco , A.C. , Welch , V.A. , Whiting , P. , and Moher , D. ( 2021 ) ‘ The PRISM 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews ’, BMJ , 372 , p. n71 .

Partridge K. ( 2010 ) ‘Systemic supervision in agency contexts: An evolving conversation with clinical psychologists in a mental health trust’, in Burck C. and Daniel G. (eds), Mirrors and Reflections: Processes in Systemic Supervision , London , Karnac , pp. 309 – 35 .

Patterson F. ( 2017 ) ‘ A good fit: The contribution of action learning to supervision practice ’, Social Work Education , 36 ( 1 ), pp. 48 – 61 .

Peet S. ( 2011 ) ‘Supervision: If it is not available, what will I do’. The New Social Worker. Retrieved from https://www.socialworker.com/featurearticles/field-placement/Supervision%3A_If_It_Is_Not_Available%2C_What_Will_I_Do%3F (accessed November 2022).

Pitt C. , Addis S. , Wilkins D. ( 2021 ) ‘ What is supervision? The views of child and family social workers and supervisors in England ’, Practice , 34 , pp. 1 – 18 .

Plüddemann A. , Aronson J. K. , Onakpoya I. , Heneghan C. , Mahtani K. R. ( 2018 ) ‘ Redefining rapid reviews: A flexible framework for restricted systematic reviews ’, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine , 23 ( 6 ), pp. 201 – 3 .

Ravalier J. ( 2019 ) ‘ Psycho-social working conditions and well-being in UK social workers ’, The British Journal of Social Work , 49 ( 2 ), pp. 371 – 90 .

Ravalier J. M. , Wainwright E. , Clabburn O. , Smyth N. , Loon M. ( 2020 ) ‘ Working conditions and wellbeing in UK social workers ’, Journal of Social Work , 21 ( 5 ), pp. 1105 – 23 .

Reason P. , Bradbury H. (eds) ( 2008 ) The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice . 2nd edn, London , Sage .

Ruch G. ( 2007 ) ‘ Reflective practice in contemporary child-care social work: The role of containment ’, British Journal of Social Work , 37 ( 4 ), pp. 659 – 80 .

Schon D. ( 1983 ) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , New York, NY , Basic Books .

Social Work England . ( 2020 ) The Vital Role of Social Work Supervision , available online at: https://www.socialworkengland.org.uk/news/the-vital-role-of-social-work-supervision/#top (accessed April 2022).

Social Work England . ( 2022 ) Professional Standards , available online at: https://www.socialworkengland.org.uk/standards/professional-standards/ (accessed August 2022).

Social Work Task Force . ( 2009 ) ‘Building a safe, confident future. The final report of the social work task force’, Social Work Task Force , available online at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/10625/1/01114-2009DOM-EN.pdf (accessed June 2022).

Staempfli A. , Fairtlough A. ( 2019 ) ‘ Intervision and professional development: An exploration of a peer-group reflection method in social work education ’, The British Journal of Social Work , 49 ( 5 ), pp. 1254 – 73 .

Stanley Y. ( 2018 ) Supervision and Effective Social Work Practice , GOV.UK. 23 October, available online at: https://socialcareinspection.blog.gov.uk/2018/10/23/supervision-and-effective-social-work-practice/ (accessed April 2022).

The College of Social Work . ( 2012 ) Quality Assurance in Practice Learning (QAPL): The Social Work Practice Learning Quality Assurance Benchmark Statement, with Supporting Evaluation Tools , London , The College of Social Work .

Tsang N. M. ( 2005 ) ‘ Reflection as dialogue ’, British Journal of Social Work , 37 ( 4 ), pp. 681 – 94 .

Turney D. , Ruch G. ( 2018 ) ‘ What makes it so hard to look and to listen? Exploring the use of the cognitive and affective supervisory approach with children’s social work managers ’, Journal of Social Work Practice , 32 ( 2 ), pp. 125 – 38 .

University College London . ( 2021 ) Evaluating Resources: CRAAP Test , available online at: https://libguides.ioe.ac.uk/evaluating/craap (accessed 18 May 2021).

Ward J. ( 2013 ) ‘ I once knew a team where all the workers called the manager “mother”. Some reflections on supervision within an integrated leadership and management programme ’, Social Work and Social Sciences Review , 16 ( 3 ), pp. 65 – 80 .

Wegrzynek P. , Ravalier J. , Mitchell A. ( 2021 ) A Rapid Literature Review of Social Work Supervision Practice (Protocol) , available online at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5GJYR (accessed June 2022).

White V. ( 2015 ) ‘ Reclaiming reflective supervision ’, Practice , 27 ( 4 ), pp. 251 – 64 .

Wilkins D. ( 2017 ) ‘ Does reflective supervision have a future in English local authority child and family social work? ’, Journal of Children’s Services , 12 ( 2–3 ), pp. 164 – 73 .

Wilkins D. , Forrester D. , Grant L. ( 2017 ) ‘ What happens in child and family social work supervision? ’, Child & Family Social Work , 22 ( 2 ), pp. 942 – 51 .

Wilson G. ( 2013 ) ‘ Evidencing reflective practice in social work education: Theoretical uncertainties and practical challenges ’, British Journal of Social Work , 43 ( 1 ), pp. 154 – 72 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-263X
• Print ISSN 0045-3102
• Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Reflective Supervision in Education

The role of the school principals in fostering educational achievement is critical, yet Australian schools are facing a crisis in recruiting and retaining educational leaders (Heffernan & Pierpoint, 2022).

Principals and other senior staff in schools experience complex, frequent demands on their time, energy and wisdom, and recent studies report they are facing unprecedented pressure on their mental health and wellbeing (DeMattews and colleagues, 2021).

Reflective Supervision provides one-on-one professional and confidential conversations (peer and group reflective supervision also exist) over several sessions to support leaders as they navigate their professional roles. The sessions also teach supervisees the basics of how to provide supervision to others, encouraging participants to understand and respond reflectively to challenges and opportunities for their leadership practice.

Reflective Supervision (based on the principals of Professional Supervision), with a clear and consistent emphasis of reflecting on practice, has a rich heritage in the helping professions in work with psychologists, social workers and therapists where supportive, formative, and normative dimensions are the main focus of the practice.

Participants in the Reflective Supervision program already have significant experience in education. The program recognises this experience, and the program involves significant self-directed learning through readings, intensive practical sessions, being supervised and supervising and reflective assessment tasks.

• Download the course flyer (pdf, 674kB)

Participants' commitment

Compulsory individual requirements for participation in, and successful completion of, the Reflective Practice in Education course as both supervisor and supervisee include 10 hours of practice in the role of ‘supervisor’ and eight hours in the role of ‘supervisee’.

Supervisee sessions are to be arranged and paid for individually by participants and a list of recommended providers will be supplied.

Please ensure that you are available to attend all of the face-to-face sessions in Camperdown, Sydney, prior to registration as full attendance is required for successful completion.

Additional training is delivered through online course content, including readings. A reflective learning journal must be maintained by course participants.

Assessment requirements

• Participant reflection on the supervision contract development process (1000 words)
• 2 x 10min videos of supervision given, plus a 500-word critical reflection for each
• Comparative research essay (2000 words)
• One-hour video demonstration of supervision given  (incl. 2000-word critical reflection)
• Reflective learning journal: critical reflection on development as a supervisor (2000 words)
• Ethics / wellbeing research essay (2000 words)
• Additional Supporting Documentation is required for AAOS membership

Course outline

• Establishing and managing the supervision relationship
• Providing Reflective Supervision
• Facilitating structured reflection on professional practice
• Providing industry (workplace) specific (schools) supervision (also: consultancy, coaching, mentoring)
• Facilitating ethical and wellbeing conversations for educational leaders
• Leading professional learning / professional development for self and other school leader
• Implementing an education focused reflective supervision pedagogy.

Presenter biographies

Geoff Broughton PhD is the Associate Professor in Practical Theology at Charles Sturt University and currently Vice-President of the Australasian Association of Supervision. Geoff has been a pioneer in the professional / pastoral supervision sector, training hundreds of supervisors over the past decade, consulting, and supervising across a range of schools, churches and the armed services. Geoff’s leadership in supervision has been recognised by the UK’s Institute for Pastoral Supervision and Reflective Practice where he is the only non-European associate. Geoff founded the Professional/Pastoral Supervision Network, is Principal of Pastoral Supervision Australia, and has authored several books and articles on supervision in Australia.

Mary Ann Hunter PhD  is Associate Professor in Education at the University of Tasmania and a leading professional supervisor with principals, educators, and artists. Originally a secondary teacher, Mary Ann has held educational positions internationally, including at the National Institute of Education Singapore, University of Queensland, and Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. She was a coordinator of  IMPACT's  global learning exchanges on creative approaches to conflict transformation and continues to work closely with schools as a Practice Leader with  4C Transformative Learning  and coordinator of UTAS' Master of Teaching. Mary Ann is a recipient of numerous awards, including an Australian Council for Educational Leaders award.

Fees and registration

Cost of course: $6600 (including GST)

A list of recommended providers of reflective supervision will be supplied to course registrants who will need to contact the supervisor of their choice to arrange the time and payment for their individual sessions. 

Because full attendance at all face-to-face sessions in Camperdown is required for successful completion, intending participants are advised to ensure they can attend these workshops  before registering (and paying) to take part.

Registration

In 2024, two cohorts with identical content are currently scheduled.

Frequently Asked Questions

How is this different to counselling.

The Reflectors are not (for the most part) clinically trained, and they are not able to support issues that are best supported by counselling psychologists. Reflective Supervision aims to support school leaders by providing frameworks and approaches to respond to their own specific challenges.

How is this different to coaching?

In Reflective Supervision, the focus on developing strong reflective capacities – rather than providing advice – so that school leaders may be able to think through their challenges with the benefit of a supportive colleague.

Is this approach new?

No. Psychologists and social workers have been involved in a process called Professional Supervision for several decades. This approach is based on the evidence and practice base of that approach.

What is the evidence for the effectiveness of this approach?

There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of the processes this approach is based on, Professional Supervision. The following is extracted from a meta-analysis of the available evidence by Newcastle University in the UK: 

"It seems that benefits [from professional supervision] are evident for the individual, from reduction in stress and anxiety to improvement in job satisfaction. Effective supervision also benefited the team by creating a more supportive work environment, which in turn has led to improved patient care. There was also some evidence on the damaging effects for the individual when there is no or poor supervision in place." — Rothwell, 2019

Are the supervisory sessions confidential?

Yes. All sessions are confidential and separate from any system-based accountability measures.

How many supervisory sessions are there, and how often do they occur?

Participants are required to complete 10 supervisory sessions in the role of ‘supervisor’, and eight in the role of ‘supervisee’. After the first session, a second meeting will take place within the following fortnight with ongoing supervisory sessions approximately every four weeks thereafter. Time and venue will be negotiated between the parties.

Are the supervisory sessions in-person or via zoom?

Sessions may be held in-person, via zoom, or a combination of each. Each reflective practice session is 45-60 minutes duration. A quiet, uninterrupted and comfortable setting is best suited to facilitate a reflective practice session. Some school leaders prefer to engage in sessions off school site.

Professional Learning Calendar

Academic lead, nina goodwin.

• +61 2 9351 6329
• [email protected]
• Professional Learning Sydney School of Education and Social Work Education Building A35 The University of Sydney NSW 2006

• Media centre

Search the HCPC

Popular searches.

• the care act 2014
• care act 2014
• registration certificate

Recent searches

Suggestions.

• {{search.Title}}

Reflect, discuss, develop: the value of supervision

• Our standards

Supervision helps you reflect on your practice, identify areas for improvement, and put development plans or strategies in place. It also helps you meet our standards.

Supervision is one way you can complete continuing professional development (CPD), an important part of meeting our Standards of conduct, performance and ethics.

This blog post explores the benefits of supervision for both registrants and service users.

Supervision can take a variety of different forms. It could be a regular one-to-one meeting with your line manager, clinical supervision with a peer or supervision in groups.

Supervisory activities can include:

• structured discussions of your caseload;
• assistance with particular tasks;
• performance reviews and monitoring;
• reflective practice;
• workload planning;
• debriefing discussions; and
• constructive feedback.

Here are some of the benefits supervision might have for your professional practice.

It can help you to identify and resolve problems

Supervision can provide valuable space to reflect on any tricky areas of your work. This can help you to:

• identify any issues early;
• seek advice; and
• talk through solutions in a proactive way.

It supports continuing professional development

Keeping your knowledge and skills up to date and relevant to your scope of practice is crucial to ensure you continue to practise safely and effectively. Supervision can help you to identify and respond to any learning needs or gaps, to ensure you continue to meet our standards.

It can also have a positive impact on your career progression. Supervision can help you to:

• identify professional development opportunities;
• seek support and feedback; and
• monitor your development.

If you are returning to work after a break, supervision can help you ensure that your knowledge and skills are up to date, and demonstrate that you are a safe and effective practitioner.

It’s important for professional practice

As a professional, it is important that you continue to quality assure your work. This means:

• taking the time to identify when things have gone well; and
• highlighting any areas you think you can improve on.

Reflecting on your practice has a positive impact on service users and carers by raising standards overall and improving service user safety.

Supervision can also be an effective way to address competence or conduct issues. Appropriate supervision can demonstrate insight into what has gone wrong, and that you have taken steps to avoid repeating the concerns in future. If a concern is raised with the HCPC about your fitness to practise, effective supervision can be an important mitigating factor in deciding whether your fitness to practise is impaired, and what action, if any, might be needed.

It’s a way to look after your wellbeing

Work in health and social care professions is often challenging.

Regular supervision can provide a supportive environment in which to discuss any difficulties or concerns. It can also help you to reflect on your achievements and affirm areas of positive practice too.

Approaching supervision

We do not set requirements for how you should approach supervision, or the type or amount of supervision you should complete.

We understand that access to supervision can vary across different workplaces and professions. The approach you take may depend on what supervision is available to you.

We expect you to use your professional judgement to decide what sort of supervision will be most effective for you in your practice.

This is likely to be informed by discussions with peers and your line manager. Your professional body may also have some guidance for your profession.

We have recently commissioned research to inform our understanding of effective clinical and peer supervision. We anticipate that the report will be published at the end of 2019. We will share the findings on the resources section of our website.

What is CPD?

CPD stands for continuing professional development, a standard that HCPC registrants must meet.

• Reflective practice
• Supervision, leadership and culture

Please sign in to continue

Processing payment, please wait...

• children & families
• Create account
• open the search modal
• open the menu

• The importance of reflective supervision

Published: 22/05/2024

Alison Domakin, Senior Research and Development Officer at Research in Practice shares tips, tools and techniques for how we ensure truly reflective supervision.

Talking points

This podcast looks at:

• The purpose of supervision.
• Why senior leaders should focus on building a culture of reflective supervision.
• Systemic barriers to reflective supervision.
• Power and inequity.
• Why relationships are important for supervision.

[Introduction]

This is a Research in Practice podcast, supporting evidence informed practice with children and families, young people, and adults.

Phil: Hello, and welcome to this Research in Practice podcast. My name is Phil John, and I'm a Technical Officer at Research in Practice. I'm delighted to be joined today by my colleague, Alison Domakin. Say hello, Alison.

Alison: Hello.

Phil: Who is a Senior Research and Development Officer here at Research in Practice. So, today we're going to be discussing the importance of reflective supervision in social work practice. I wonder then if you could talk a little bit about your background, and experience in supervision, and reflective supervision?

Alison: Prior to working in my current role at Research in Practice I spent 2.5 years as the practice engagement lead for the Practice Supervisor Development Programme. That's now ended, but in its time it was a national programme in England providing a five, or six date, then became a CPD opportunity for practice supervisors. In particular, for practice supervisors in child and family social work. By work, you know, being involved in some of the delivery of that programme, but also supporting, and working with practice supervisors who'd undertaken that programme, I learnt a lot during that time about some of the barriers, and enablers. Also, how important it was to give practice supervisors the space to come together to reflect on supervision, and think about how they could themselves really maximise what they offered in terms of reflective support, and supervision to their teams.

[What is supervision]

Phil: So, where do we start on this journey into supervision, and reflective supervision, Alison?

Alison: Well, I wonder if it makes sense to just, kind of, go back, and think about one particular model of supervision to get us going. So, yes, one of the most significant models for thinking about the purpose of supervision was developed by Tony Morrison in the early 2000s. He argued that there are four functions of supervision. One is around management, about ensuring competent accountable practice and performance. The second function is around development, about helping a worker continuously improve, and be the best they can be. The third element is around support, about providing personal and emotional support to workers. The fourth element is called mediation, which is around engaging the individual with the organisation. So, you know, what the organisation requires of the worker to work effectively. He also argued that there are four stakeholders in supervision. Those are the people that use our services, kind of, supervisee, him, or herself, the organisation, and partners, and then agencies. Then the last bit he talked about was that if we're thinking about a supervision cycle we need to engage in a cycle that's reflective.

So, we need to think about what work we're doing in practice, reflect on that, reflect on those experiences, and then with the help of a supervisor analyse, understand that, make sense of that, what that means. Use that reflection to then inform, and guide, kind of, future practice. That's been one of the most influential, kind of, models thinking about supervision. My argument would be that because that model is so familiar we can often make the mistake of saying, 'Oh, well, we know about supervision,' and it, kind of, fades into the background. I think that we forget some important elements within that. That actually unless we provide a secure, safe, containing relationship for the supervisee within a reflective supervision space, it becomes very difficult to make use of that supervision effectively, and for those different functions to work to the maximum. I suppose, by that I mean what we know is that recent research coming out in 2023 by Ravalier talked about the fact that the quality and consistency of supervision across the social care sector wasn't there. So, there are great variations.

Also, a recent report, Big Listen report, done with London local authorities in 2023, talked about the fact that many staff said that actually their experiences of supervision it might be that it was more of a tick box approach to supervision. So, in that way, I suppose, what I'm arguing here is, that the management, or organisational element of supervision can predominate. We're looking at, 'What you've done. How within timescale. Give me an account of this.' We're, kind of, checking up, and accounting on work, and the reflective discussion element gets squeezed, because of the systemic pressures within the caring sector.

[A positive culture of supervision]

Phil: So, I mean, one of the things then, if we're talking about the environment, the culture of work in practice then, how important is it that senior leaders focus on building a positive culture of supervision within the whole organisation?

Alison: Absolutely vital, and we're, kind of, moving here on to the work of Jane Wonnacott who worked with Tony Morrison, and continued that work after his death. Jane passionately argues that it's not good enough to think about just providing supervision to practitioners, the people who are directly engaged in practice. What she talks about is building a positive culture of supervision throughout the whole organisation. That's tricky to do. In order to do that you have to actively work at developing that. It doesn't happen by chance. One of the things that, kind of, came through from working on the practice supervisor development programme was that many practice supervisors who came said, you know, well, the course had really challenged them not only to think about what they provided to the people that they supervise, but their own needs with their supervision with their line manager. Time after time we hear people talk about the higher you go up the leadership ladder, or management ladder within an organisation, the less opportunity there may be for engaging in reflective supervision yourself.

[Anti-racist supervision]

Phil: That's the thing I was going to ask about, in what ways can reflective supervision help identify, and address systemic barriers, and inequities in social work practice, thinking perhaps about anti-racist supervision?

Alison: I think one of the things, particularly thinking about social work as a profession, is that it has a strong focus, and always has done since its inception on anti-oppressive, or anti-discriminatory practice, so we are thinking about those kind of issues. Just thinking about reflection within social work practice, one of the tools that we used on the practice supervisor development programme, and we've got available as an open access resource, is thinking about using the GGRRAAACCEEESSS developed by John Burnham. So, the graces are a pneumonic for outlining different aspects of our identity like gender, race, ability, age, education, sexuality, etc, etc.

Phil: The As go on for a long time, don't they? It's actually social GGRRA-A-ACCEEESSS, isn't it, I think, yes?

Alison: So, I think those are a really helpful way, and sit alongside anti-discriminatory practice for helping us think about what's different, and similar between ourselves and the people we work with, or between ourselves and our supervisee. It just helps us to understand where people are more powerful, or less powerful. In social work, we work with some of the most disadvantaged people within society who often have faced trauma, hardship, both at an individual level, and also are, kind of, blown about by the winds of government policy, whether help is provided, or not, the national initiatives and funding. Really people have experienced very, very challenging situations. If we're saying that we're a profession that's founded on social justice then we have to provide a space in supervision, I would argue, where we can think through how our differences, and experience of inequality, and oppression impact on the practitioner, and the person receiving our services, on their relationship. So, we have to understand how that affects the communication. If it's then affecting the communication it will then affect that practitioner's assessment of what's going on. It may then affect their recommendations about what should happen next.

So, supervision provides a place where, you know, using curiosity, and being brave and asking challenging questions, or working, I like to say, elegantly in supervision. The supervisor can tease out some of our responses, some of our feelings that sit alongside what we also say is our professional opinion. I suppose what I'm saying is there are two things going on. One is my professional view about what's going on when I'm working with someone. The second part that's going along might be my personal experience. What can happen in practice is the two can get mixed up. Some of my response to what I think is going on when I'm working with somebody, and what I think should happen, might be in a sense contaminated by my personal response to them. So, if we don't think about where there's power, where there's sameness, or difference, when we're working in pressurised, and busy, and demanding situations, and one of the things that characterises particularly social work practice, is that we work with uncertainty. We work with a lot of risk. Both of things give us a drive towards certainty.

Phil: A, sort of, time pressure as well then presumably as well that folds into that. I was just wondering, like, so the principles of reflective supervision then require in a space active engagement, and open dialogue then. That's, kind of, critical to allow that discourse between supervisor and supervisee, would you say that? Those things are really, sort of, central to it.

Alison: Absolutely, because going back to that point we were thinking about, about inequality, or some of our personal responses to families, or admitting when we feel stuck, or admitting when it's, like, 'Oh, I'm really struggling to get on with this person, and I don't know what's going on.' Those are very personal, and exposing things to be talking about. It's not something that would just trip off the tongue as your first comment in a supervision space. So, in order to reflect we have to provide, you know, my argument would be, we've got to absolutely think not about supervision as a task, or a quality assurance thing. We've got to think about this as a conversation between two people that happens in a relationship, and, 'What can I do as a supervisee to make this a place where both of us can build,' you know, I think in the literature it's called, 'A positive learning alliance within supervision.' That doesn't mean that you're always fluffy, and nice in supervision, but you create the space where you can be honest, and authentic, and your supervisee can be honest and authentic.

Phil: It's not just a tick box exercise then. You're actually seeing it, you know, for the value that it has, and for what can come out as a result of that active communication, and reflection. Presumably, the tools that you were talking about earlier, so our Social GGRRAAACCEEESSS, and the Wonnacott's Discrepancy Matrix, those all fold into that process, or can do. Do you want to talk about how that works?

Alison: I can. Do you mind if I just go back first though?

Phil: Yes, sure.

Alison: I was just going to say, because there was one other thing before that, because you'd also mentioned anti-racist supervision. I suppose, up until now what I've been talking about is supervision being a space where we discuss the practice, or the work that a person is involved in. If we think about, kind of, supervision. Supervision is about supporting the development of that worker also. So, part of that is thinking about giving praise when they do things well, noting their development, noting areas where they might need to, kind of, continue to work on, thinking about how they progress in their career, etc. So, linking then with anti-racist supervision, that's something that we became much more aware of from 2020 onwards in the practice supervisor development programme following the murder of George Floyd. Actually, practice supervisors were starting to say as a result of that, and the, kind of, more open discussion about racism that was around at the time, was saying, 'I encounter racism as a Black, or Global Majority, kind of, practitioner. I encounter racism in my own personal life. I encounter it sometimes with the people that I'm working with, or the communities that I'm working in. I encounter it in the organisation that employs me,' and yet it's never discussed in supervision.

People started to make the case that, actually, in terms of providing support to me, thinking about the work that I do, it would be useful to discuss it. Also, because of what we know around the fact that there's a glass ceiling, that it can be more difficult for Black, and Global Majority members of staff to progress, and take up leadership roles, you know, having a focus in supervision of thinking about how racism might be discussed, and addressed. Thinking about how you can support someone, and their development, is really, really important. Unless we focus on it particularly it's often overlooked.

Phil: It makes me think of the quote from Shabnam Ahmed who has worked quite a lot with Research in Practice. She's got her own YouTube channel in her own right, which is fantastic to watch. There's a quote here which I think lends into this where she says, 'We believe that good social work supervision nourishes social workers, and is fundamental to our wellbeing in practice,' which is what we have been discussing. 'However, if supervision is not reflective of anti-racist, and anti-discriminatory, and anti-oppressive principles, then it can do more harm than good, in my opinion,' she says. 'This has the potential to reproduce inequalities,' which is going to what you were saying really about that. That if it's not acknowledged, and if it's not called out, it goes unquestioned, unchallenged, and that's no good for anybody really.

Alison: Yes, and I think it goes back to, I mean, Shabnam's comments also reinforce the importance of how you contract, or set up how you're going to work together with the person that you're supervising. So, it's really important to use a supervision agreement not just as a form, but to engage in a discussion about, 'What's my role? What's your role?' in terms of supervisee, and supervisor. 'What different things will I do as a supervisor? I might challenge you. I might give you positive feedback.' It's, kind of, setting out, 'These are the different aspects of my role. How best to work with you, how to get the best out of you, and how will we review what's going on between you?' Then if we're thinking about anti-racism, then a really essential part is then sharing a bit of, 'This is my experience, and identity, and background as a supervisee. What's yours?' If we then think about the GGRRAAACCEEESSS, and think about experiences of racism, or disadvantage, we can start to build within that what that person's experiences might be, how we can best support them. How they can challenge us if we're not providing a space that doesn't allow exploration of, particularly if it's a Black, or Global Majority member of staff, of racism, and supporting their development.

Phil: It's anything but fluffy then. You were saying supervision isn't fluffy, but that isn't. If you set up the conditions where as a supervisor, supervisee you've got honesty, and trust, and time to do that, then it becomes with bravery between the two people, then it becomes quite an important crucible to challenge in a safe way, and reflect, because we come back to that word of reflective supervision. It becomes a very important thing. So, in setting up that supervision then, I suppose like any, sort of, initial, or beginnings, the beginning relationship, that's quite a critical time then to set up the core values of how the reflective supervision is going to take place.

Alison: Absolutely. I think it can be really hard to protect that time when we've got so many pressures to go in and go, 'Boom, boom, boom, let's look at this,' all these other demands on our time. That's really important, because as we used the term fluffy, a supervisor also has teeth. One of the things that, kind of, comes up through the literature, and also lots of the practice supervisors on the practice supervisor development programme talked about, was that you can get stuck in your own relationship with a supervisee. You might think something as a practice supervisor, or think, 'Oh, I need to give you feedback about some aspect of your performance, or the way you are.' What can end up happening is that we think, 'Oh, but if I challenge them I know they're going to get upset,' because this is perhaps an issue with how this person is in the office, and their interaction with other team members, or I've tried to give feedback before and it's gone terribly. So, it can end up that it, kind of, sits there in the middle, these issues. The supervisor doesn't feel enabled to say what they're thinking, to give their feedback, and it gets stuck. That gets put off, and put off, and put off.

So, you know, it's hard to do, I'm not underestimating that, but if you've done a supervision agreement, and outlined, and made challenges something, and outlined some of that, you've given yourself permission to do it. You can refer to that if you need to give feedback. The other thing is even if we don't, and this is a really important point, even if you have missed doing that with a supervisee at the start when you first started working with them, it's never too late at any point in the supervisory relationship to say, 'We didn't do this at the start. My bad. Let's do it now.'

Phil: Let's go from now.

Alison: 'From this point forward.'

Phil: Any point is a good point to start doing it. It can only really enhance the collaboration, and communication ultimately if it's conducted right, and considering the things that you've said. I suppose now might be as good a time as any to talk about some of the things that Research in Practice have got to support reflective supervision. You've certainly got a lot of experience in this. You've come hot off delivering quite a bit of training directly in relation to reflective supervision. So, I suppose, we could talk about that now.

Alison: Sure, absolutely.

Phil: That would seem a good time, Alison.

[Applying tools in practice]

Alison: So, we have got two open access microsites. One related to the Practice Supervisor Development Programme. That's got about 180 different resources on it. It's got films, I think some podcasts, tools, knowledge briefings, all exploring different aspects of supervision. Some of those resources are focused on, and used by practice supervisors. We've also got some resources which are for managers of practice supervisors, because they play a really key role in supporting practice supervisors to do their job well. You've mentioned Wonnacott's Discrepancy Matrix earlier. So, when I refer to tools we deliberately made a decision that we wanted to develop tools, so that they would be something that had… they weren't overly theoretical. They had a practical application. It's like an idea, or a concept that might be useful in supervision, 'Here's what it is. Here are some ideas about how you might use it in supervision. Here are some questions you might ask in supervision to get going using it.' So, we, kind of, have the idea really of it being a tool. Like your rummage in a toolbox, get something out, can try it in supervision, and it helps. When we think about tools, I think one of the things that, kind of, going back now to the earlier discussion, supervision can get boring.

It's, like, I have a preferred way of working, you have a preferred way of working. Actually, it's like, 'I know Phil's going to ask me how I am. Then I know after that he's going to ask me about my work with Mrs Blah Blah,' and on we go. So, it, kind of, throws a curve ball in, because if we want it to be reflective it's not just about the relationship, it's about sometimes doing things a bit differently. So, using a tool, or asking different questions, or saying, 'Today, we're going to use this. We're going to look at the GGRRAAACCEEESSS together. We're going to think about that in supervision, and reflect on your working relation to somebody based on that.' It just is a little bit of difference. It moves us away from what we normally expect.

Phil: Yes. I know, but I really like what you were saying there, because often, you know, terminology can be off-putting. So, for example, Wonnacott's Discrepancy Matrix sounds quite a bit of a mouthful to say really, and I'm glad I managed to get away with that. Actually, when you look at what that is, and the way that it allows you to, sort of… it's like a Sherlock Holmes mind palace I suppose. In terms of it allows you some time, or demands of yourself some time to reflect on how something has gone, and quarters it, doesn't it, into various… without going… I know this podcast isn't about Wonnacott's Discrepancy Matrix, and I know we've got links, and information to all of that, but those kind of tools just they're actually practical.

Alison: Yes, and they encourage us to think differently. Not think differently in terms of our conclusions, but to have a conversation, and think about different aspects that we may not immediately think about if we weren't using that tool. The other thing I should say also is in addition to the Practice Supervisor Development Programme resources, we've got a number of tools, films, and other resources available that came from the Train the Trainer Practice Supervisor Development Programme, particularly for working in adult context. The fact that they are split reflects the fact that they were funded in different ways. One for focus on children and families, and the other adult. I would argue that both are generic, and in fact one of the things we're looking at now at Research in Practice is developing a new reflective supervision learning hub. We're going to choose tools from those, kind of, bring those together to create a new area where all the tools are generic, presented as generic tools. Yes, continue the conversation about reflective supervision, and providing resources that support people to do it.

Phil: So, that's fantastic. So, really, I mean, for people that want to know more, and find out more then, it is to go to our website obviously, and as you say, to go from there. I mean, it's pretty easy, you don't even have to remember any of the things that have been said directly here presumably. It's just a quick tap of reflective supervision into our search bar, and that should bring up information.

Alison: The other thing I was going to say is that the learning hub that I'm talking about won't be ready until the summer of 2024. So, don't start looking for that now. It's not available.

Phil: Don't start looking for it now.

Alison: We will let people know when it is available.

[Conclusion]

Phil: Definitely something to dip into when it's ready. In conclusion, now that we're reaching the end of the podcast on reflective supervision, I was wondering if there are any, sort of, concluding thoughts that you might have, Alison, anything that we've not covered that you want to mention?

Alison: I think the thing, one of the things that really came out of the Practice Supervisor Development Programme was that Practice Supervisors talked about the importance of moving down the gears in order to go into a reflective supervision space. So, when people are working in busy, demanding, challenging work context, they might be up in fifth gear going boom, boom, boom, just, kind of, going through things. That's not a helpful gear to be going into supervision with. So, we need quick things to do, but actually, you know, we're not advising that somebody goes off for an hour walk to decompress before they go into supervision. We clearly haven't got time for that. To be mindful of one's state, and one's gear, so to speak, as you then finish that task and thing about going into supervision. Thinking then about acknowledging with the person at the start of the supervision how are they, and just trying to move together to get into a space where it's more reflective, which then creates demands, doesn't it? So, as well as being mindful of that, thinking about where you're having supervision, is it the best place? Is there a tannoy going? Are people coming in? Can you put a notice on your door? So, I think attending to some of those things is really, really important.

Phil: The environment really, the environment. So, one is thinking about yourself as you go in, and allowing yourself a pause, or a little bit of, dare I say it, reflection before going into the reflective supervision, and a quiet space that just allows you that time to have that, what is quite an intimate discussion in that sense, isn't it? It's about just allowing a space to focus.

Alison: Yes. I think the other thing I'd argue is that, you know, I suppose going back to the stuff around Morrison, and the different functions of supervision. If we focus too much on the purposes for the organisation to check on the work that you're doing then we lose the focus on the fact that supervision is for the person being supervised primarily. So, we need to be asking questions about, 'How is it for you? What's your learning style? What might get in the way of you getting the best out of this? What do I do?' Using the systemic question we might ask, 'What would I be doing if I was the least helpful to you in supervision?' That can be really helpful in drawing out a conversation about what that person wants, and needs. So, we have to think about how, and ask, 'How is this other person experiencing the supervision?' The last point I'd make, is to not beat ourselves up about the, kind of, many pressures, and demands that we have. We might not provide perfect supervision. Who does? I certainly know that research that Harry Ferguson and his team did in the early days I think just after the COVID pandemic, they went into some children and family organisations, children's social care.

Some of the organisations that they were in hadn't got great Ofsted inspections, had many challenging organisational issues that they were encountering, and weren't always a happy, or fulfilling place to work in. Yet even within those systemic challenges and demands very often people would say, 'Oh, it's really hard working for the organisation. It's got a way to go to improve, but I stay in my team because I've got a great practice supervisor who knows me, understands me, supports me, is authentic, and I stay because I've got a great practice supervisor.'

Phil: That's a good way to end now, on a positive. Well, thank you very much for your contribution today on the subject of reflective supervision. As we said during the podcast, if you want to know more then go to our website. It's very friendly. A little tap in a search bar will go a long way for you to find the tools, resources, information, that Alison has been talking about. Thank you very much, Alison.

Alison: Lovely, thanks, Phil.

Thanks for listening to this Research in Practice podcast. We hope you've enjoyed it. Why not share with your colleagues and let us know your thoughts on X (formerly Twitter) @researchIP and LinkedIn.

Reflective questions

Here are reflective questions to stimulate conversation and support practice.

• Does supervision provide you with space to reflect?
• What kind of issues take priority in supervision and what gets side-lined?
• What would you like to do differently in supervision?
• How might you offer feedback about your experience of supervision?

Resources that are mentioned in this episode

• Practice Supervisor Development Programme Resources (PSDP) and Tools .
• Supervisor Development Programme .
• The 4x4x4 supervision model .
• Ravalier, J, Wegrzynek, P, Mitchell, A, McGowan, J, Mcfadden, P and Bald, C. A Rapid Review of Reflective Supervision in Social Work , The British Journal of Social Work, Volume 53, Issue 4, June 2023, Pages 1945–1962.
• The Big Listen .
• Jane Wonnacott's work and research include this model for supervision and PSDP resources on Questions around the supervision cycle and An audit of your supervision role .
• PSDP - Resources and Tools: Social GGRRAAACCEEESSS and the LUUUTT model .
• Wonnacott's Discrepancy Matrix .
• Anti-racist supervision .
• Shabnam Ahmed’s School of Shabs .
• PSDP - Resources and Tools: Using supervision agreements .

Further Research in Practice resources are available below, see Related Content.

Professional Standards

PQS:KSS - The role of supervision | Organisational context | Promote and govern excellent practice | Developing excellent practitioners | Confident analysis and decision-making | Purposeful and effective social work | Emotionally intelligent practice supervision | Performance management and improvement | Creating a context for excellent practice | Designing a system to support effective practice | Developing excellent practitioners | Support effective decision-making | Quality assurance and improvement | Supervision, critical analysis and reflection | Organisational context | Developing confident and capable social workers | Relationship-based practice supervision

CQC - Effective | Caring

PCF - Critical reflection and analysis | Contexts and organisations

RCOT - Support development

Related Content

Supervision

Supervision: Change Project

Everyone working in social care should have supervision. These Change Project resources suggest that the ultimate purpose of supervision in adult social care is to promote the wellbeing of adults and carers – and that this is achieved through keeping them at the centre of supervision.

Strengths-based working

Supervision: Brief Guide (2019)

Supervision is when one worker in adult social care is given responsibility to work with another colleague or group of colleagues. The aim of supervision is to promote the wellbeing of adults and carers who are receiving support. This Brief Guide explains what supervision is and provides practical advice for adults and carers about how they can have their voice heard throughout the supervision process.

Reflective supervision: Resource Pack (2017)

This package of resources provides a summary of research evidence on reflective supervision alongside learning from practice, and tools to use in one to one and group supervision sessions.

Wellbeing supervision: Supervisors Briefing (2019)

This briefing provides an accessible summary of how to embed quality and effective supervision in social care organisations. The ultimate purpose of supervision in adult social care is to promote the wellbeing of adults and carers. This can be achieved through keeping adults and carers at the centre of supervision, adopting a strengths-based approach to supervision, supporting supervisees’ wellbeing and promoting wellbeing throughout the organisation.

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
• Administration for Children & Families
• Upcoming Events
• Open an Email-sharing interface
• Open to Share on Facebook
• Open to Share on Twitter
• Open to Share on Pinterest
• Open to Share on LinkedIn

Prefill your email content below, and then select your email client to send the message.

Recipient e-mail address:

Send your message using:

Reflective Supervision

Just as Head Start and Early Head Start staff strive to engage parents and families in healthy, trusting, and respectful relationships, it is important that staff have the same kind of relationships with colleagues and supervisors. Supervision is not only about staff accountability. It also involves the commitment to nurture and guide staff so that they have the tools to engage children and families successfully. Effective relationships between supervisors and staff contribute to the ability to reflect upon and cope with the stresses and demands of their work. It is an important aspect of building a safe and healthy climate for Head Start and Early Head Start staff, families, and children. Structured supervision maintains staff productivity and reinforces the goal of caregiving within the program.

Supervision is more than a program requirement. Like the relationship between a Head Start and Early Head Start professional and a family, the supervisory relationship can offer the same qualities of mutual care and respect, as well as opportunities for safety, trust, and positive change. Supervision is an opportunity for leadership to use the strategies of reflection to foster growth, reinforce strengths, and encourage resilience. In addition to giving staff the encouragement and guidance they need, it also keeps leadership in touch with the real issues that the program faces.

Structured supervision communicates that there will be times when staff may not know what to do, but that there is someone—and a time and place— dedicated to helping them express their feelings, problem solve, and strategize. If supervision is a place where staff feel judged or evaluated, then the opportunity for reflection and discussion is lost and meaningful growth is compromised. Confidentiality is essential. It’s important for supervisors to help staff feel safe enough to take risks within the relationship. An effective strategy for establishing safety is using messages like those we use with our families. For example, messages such as "You have strengths," "Reflect on what you need," and "Take care of yourself"  can build resilience among staff and let them know that they are valued partners in the program.

As the supervisory relationship develops over time, supervisors and staff can share the responsibility for the quality and content of the relationship.  How does the relationship feel? How is the time used? What topics require more attention?  Shared responsibility begins with scheduling regular time for supervision. Preserving this time to build teamwork and brainstorm about how to develop the work is a true gift and should be valued.

Supervisor Strategies: Modeling Positive Goal-Oriented Relationships

When we provide supervision, we also have the opportunity to model effective strategies to build relationships with families. It is a parallel process. How we behave with staff models how we want staff to interact with families. The strength-based attitudes and relationship-based practices for working with families can be adapted to build relationships with our staff.

Strength-based Attitudes:

• Staff deserve the support and respect we are asking them to give families.
• Staff are our partners with a critical role in achieving outcomes.
• Staff have expertise about their own fields of practice.
• Staff’s contributions are valuable and important.

Relationship-based Practices:

Reflect on staff’s perspective Have an ongoing dialogue with your staff that allows them to have input about the structure, content, process, timing, and tone of supervision. This offers an opportunity for staff to reflect on what type of supervisory relationship they would like to have and how to negotiate goals and needs together. Ask staff to consider with you how you can work together to respond to complex situations. This can provide staff with an opportunity to consider different viewpoints within a system and reinforce teamwork.

Support staff’s competence Accentuate the positives among staff members and in the work that they do. Staff need to be reassured about their knowledge and expertise. A non–"top down" approach to supervision helps staff feel that they are a valuable member of a team. Staff may feel encouraged to reflect on their own professional competencies and goals, recognize their contributions, and feel safe to explore their challenges.

Focus on the family-staff relationship As you provide guidance to staff, you can work with them to learn new skills for working with families. Use strategies that focus the conversation on taking apart what’s working and what’s not, and how they can use that information to determine next steps with the family.

Value the staff’s passion Try to listen to what the staff is experiencing without judging. This may include how different situations affect their mood, concentration, motivation, ability to connect with others, and the demands on you. What are their emotional reactions to what they experience? By creating a safe and professional space where staff can talk about their real emotions, you help each other to better understand the roots of problems and strategize about how to address them.

Make time for your own reflection As a supervisor, you often put your staff’s needs before your own. Reflection allows us to consider our reactions, responses, and options. Make time to reflect on your own experiences, goals, and challenges. Reflection on a past situation can help us prepare for similar events in the future. This is emotional work, and self-care is essential for you and staff. When you become available to staff in more emotional ways, you will need to take time for yourself to rejuvenate, reflect, and focus on your own professional development. Explore what helps you feel refreshed and inspired to learn and grow. What role can your supervisor play in your growth? How can your supervisor give you the best chance at the success?

One of the joys of working with families of young children is that it is an opportunity for everyone’s growth: the child, the parent, and the Head Start and Early Head Start staff and supervisors. Reflective supervision is the primary way in which programs can attend to the growth of staff. The shared experience of supervisor and staff assures that no one is alone in doing this very important work. Just as staff feel that their work is meaningful when families grow, so supervisors find satisfaction in knowing that staff are expanding their skills and finding meaning in their work.

Resource Type: Article

National Centers: Parent, Family and Community Engagement

Audience: Family Service Workers

Last Updated: March 18, 2022

• Privacy Policy
• Freedom of Information Act
• Accessibility
• Disclaimers
• Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
• Viewers & Players

Webinar 38 - July 2024: Reflective Supervision

Reflective practice is regarded as best practice within numerous disciplines and work settings, particularly in the human service delivery workforce. This session will provide an overview of reflection, reflective supervision and the training and experience that can support personal use of reflective practice concepts, as well as the training, support and experience needed for those providing reflective supervision for others. Leaning heavily on both Implementation Science and Translational Science, reflection work is the wellspring of problem solving, generating new ideas to enhance outcomes, implementing evidence-based practices, perspective change, advancing one’s professional work, etc. Supporting others in this process is guided by awareness of the stress response systems, and attention to regulatory states, co-regulation, and state dependent functioning. To incorporate these concepts with fidelity into reflective work, the Neurosequential Model in Reflection & Supervision (NMRS) is an outgrowth of Dr. Bruce Perry's Neurosequential Model of Therapeutics (NMT) and uses these core concepts to enhance reflective work and scaffold the process of both personal and systems level change. 

Dr. Kristie Brandt, NP, CNM, PHN, MS, DNP  is an internationally known teacher, clinician, and consultant, specializing in infant and early childhood mental health, trauma, and reflective supervision. In 2002, she founded what is now the 15-month U.C. Davis CPE Infant-Parent Mental Health Fellowship that has trained over 600 Fellows from around the world. She was the Chief of Public Health in Napa County, and retired after 25 years of public service. While there, she developed the Therapeutic Child Care Center for children 0-5, and in the process became acquainted with Dr. Bruce Perry and his NMT work. She has studied, taught, clinically implemented, and developed early childhood and reflective practice applications using Perry’s concepts for over 25 years. Dr. Brandt also worked closely with Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, and taught with him globally for over two decades on Touchpoints and child development. She is lead editor of the book “Infant & Early Childhood Mental Health: Core Concepts & Clinical Practice”, author of the book “Facilitating the Reflective Process: An Introductory Workbook,” and has authored or co-authored numerous journal articles and chapters. Brandt earned her Master’s and Doctorate at Case Western Reserve University, and completed a post-doctoral Fellowship in Infant-Parent Mental Health through the Child Development Unit at Boston Children’s Hospital. She is endorsed as an Infant-Family & Early Childhood Mental Health Specialist and Reflective Mentor through the California Center for Infant-Family & Early Childhood Mental Health, and an endorsed Infant Mental Health Specialist & Clinical Mentor through the international Alliance for the Advancement of Infant Mental Health. She is also licensed and board certified as both a nurse practitioner and nurse midwife. Recognition of her work includes the 2013 Touchpoints Distinguished Leader Award from the Brazelton Touchpoints Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, the Phyllis Rae McGinley Champion for Children Award from the ChildTrauma Academy in 2016; the Distinguished Alumni Award from Case Western Reserve University FPB in Cleveland, Ohio in 2019; and the Alicia Lieberman Infant Mental Health Leadership Award from the California Association for Infant Mental Health (CalAIMH) in 2023.