Supervision as Social Work Practice: A Reconceptualization

Abstract

Supervision of social work has been practiced in the field, taught in schools of social work, and mentioned in the literature since the beginning of social work practice. Over the years, academicians, theoreticians, and practitioners have searched for the right definition of social work supervision. Supervisors have been identified as teachers, enablers, consultants, and managers (Christian & Hannah, 1983; Crow & Odewahn, 1987; Magee & Pierce, 1986; Perlman, 1969). Supervision has been called an administrative task; therapy, one step removed; and a parallel to that of social work practice (Dimock & Trecker, 1949; Kadushin, 1976; Kneznek, 1966; Shulman, 1982; Trecker, 1971). The necessity of supervision is accepted in practice, and although challenged from time to time, it continues to be an integral part of professional preparation and practice. Models of supervision have changed over the years to reflect new theories of intervention and changing organizational structures, client populations, and funding sources. Arguments have been made over how long supervision should last and how much supervision is needed, but not over its necessity (Weissman, Epstein, & Savage, 1983). Although the joint concepts of giving and receiving supervision are accepted as integral parts of social work practice, there has been reluctance to define supervision as an actual method of practice. The traditional view is that supervision is a distinct entity, separate from the accepted conceptual framework of professional social work practice (Gordon & Schutz, 1977; Working Definition, 1958). Supervisors are described as professionals who have left direct practice (Shulman, 1982) and as agency administrative staff . . . who were social workers before they became (Kadushin, 1976, p. 241). The distinction between social work practitioners and supervisors is heightened by the assumption that supervision requires a set of skills, behaviors, and attitudes different from that of social work practice (Kadushin, 1985; Perlmutter, 1990). Shulman (1982) argued that although supervisors use skills that are similar and parallel to those of social workers, the purpose is to teach those skills to practitioners, not practice them directly. Munson (1983) advised supervisors to use an entirely different set of skills, those of teaching and learning, so as not to fall back on the use of social work practice skills. Some have suggested using management and administrative techniques rather than social work practice skills to deal with the supervisory (Bramhall & Ezell, 1981; Edelwich & Brodsky, 1980; Keys & Ginsberg, 1988; Mordock, 1990). An alternative view in the literature suggests, however, that supervision should be defined as social work practice itself. More than 50 years ago, Reynolds (1942) made the observation that the skills and values of administration and casework are more similar than different, having the common purpose of meeting human need. Since then, this theme has periodically reappeared. Trecker (1971) asserted that supervisors use the same skills, accomplish work through the same processes, and demonstrate behavior's based on the same professional values and principles as any other social work practitioners. Pettes (1979) defined supervision as a process by which one social work practitioner enables another social work practitioner . . . to practice to the best of his ability (p. 3). The argument is not to advocate therapeutic relationships among social work practitioners, but rather to recognize social work practice on another level and from a different perspective (Battle, 1991). Based on the alternative view that supervision is indeed a method of social work practice found within the same conceptual framework of accepted professional values, skills, and knowledge, this article explores the history of social work supervision and suggests a model of supervision based on the practice concepts of mediation and mutual aid. …