British Journal of Social Work (2021) 00, 1–19

doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcab074

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

Supportive Social Work Supervision as
an Act of Care: A Conceptual Model
Michelle Newcomb *

Faculty of Health, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4069, Australia

*Correspondence to Dr Michelle Newcomb, Faculty of Health, School of Public Health

and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Brisbane,
QLD 4069, Australia. E-mail: michelle.newcomb@qut.edu.au

Abstract
Supportive supervision is an important but often over-looked practice in contempo-
rary social work, often assisting in maintaining practitioner well-being. The following
research explores how eleven social workers in Australia experience supportive super-
vision and its impact on their well-being and job satisfaction. The research used inter-
pretative phenomenological analysis to reveal the complex and important role
supportive supervision has for social workers, working within risk-adverse, managerial-
ist settings. Participants revealed how supportive supervision allowed them to feel
cared for and valued within their work environment. This was contrasted with their
experience of the tokenistic supervision they received in many agencies leading to
feelings of emotional unsafety in the workplace. Whilst social work is inherently an
emotionally driven profession, this study revealed how supervisory practices that focus
on risk and surveillance place supportive supervision as an afterthought. This research
highlights the importance of supportive supervision in ‘caring for the carers’ in front
line social work positions.

Keywords: emotion, risk aversion, supportive supervision

Accepted: March 2021

Caring for the carer: How social worker’s view

supportive supervision
Within the social work profession supervision is central in allowing indi-
viduals and organisations to maintain effective and ethical practice

# The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf

www.basw.co.uk of The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.
Page 2 of 19 Michelle Newcomb

(Chen and Scannapieco, 2010; Chiller and Crisp, 2012; Wonnacott, 2012;

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

O’Donoghue, 2015; Turner-Daly and Jack, 2017; Nickson et al., 2020).
The process of social work supervision involves a supervisor overseeing
the administrative, educational and supportive functions of a social
workers role, with the overall goal of ensuring the delivery of the best
possible service to social work clients (Kadushin and Harkness, 2014).
The supervisor may be the direct line manager of the social worker or
may work external from the organisation. The Australian Association of
Social Work (AASW) (2014) recognises supervision as pivotal in en-
hancing professional skills and competencies, engaging social workers in
ongoing professional learning, and assisting in worker retention by sup-
porting and resourcing them in line with the organisations visions, goals
and policies. Supervision generally occurs via a dialectic process and is
recommended to occur on a monthly basis for a minimum of one hour
(Australian Association of Social Workers, 2014).
Supervision can also be an act of care, demonstrating the organisa-
tions concern for social worker’s well-being and professional develop-
ment (Chiller and Crisp, 2012; Nickson et al., 2020). Quality supervision
attends to the social and emotional needs of social workers and is associ-
ated with increased job satisfaction and retention (Michàlle et al., 2009;
De Groot, 2016). Many social work agencies aim to employ dedicated,
motivated and caring staff but to ensure ongoing staff well-being, the
same qualities need to be demonstrated by the employer (De Groot,
2016). One mechanism for providing recognition, and care for social
workers is the provision of supportive supervision, which acknowledges
practitioners’ feelings (Wonnacott, 2012; Kadushin and Harkness, 2014).
Substantial empirical and conceptual literature has highlighted a range
of best practice models and processes for social work supervision
(Wonnacott, 2012; Hair, 2013; Ingram, 2013; Australian Association of
Social Workers, 2014; Kadushin and Harkness, 2014; O’Donoghue, 2015;
Ashley-Binge and Cousins, 2020; Nickson et al., 2020). Despite this un-
derstanding contemporary social work practice has been critiqued for
providing supervision based only on meeting the administrative and or-
ganisation needs, rather than those of the practitioner (Wonnacott, 2012;
Kadushin and Harkness, 2014; Egan et al., 2016). Manthorpe et al.
(2015) found research pertaining to social work supervision as predomi-
nantly viewed as a dialectical, therapeutic approach to developing indi-
vidual’s practice or as a tool for undertaking surveillance and ensuring
power over social workers. Whilst supervision is considered an important
practice in social work, it remains under researched (Manthorpe et al.,
2015; O’Donoghue and Tsui, 2015). Limited research examines how so-
cial workers perceive supervision as an act of care, contributing to their
own well-being and self-care. This study used interpretative phenomeno-
logical analysis (IPA) to examine how eleven social workers in Australia
conceptualised supportive supervision as a mechanism of care, enabling
 Supportive Social Work Supervision as an Act of Care Page 3 of 19

them to feel connected and valued by the organisation. The findings of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

this study have important implications for social work employers
highlighting the importance of supportive supervision in maintaining so-
cial worker’s well-being and workplace satisfaction.

Social workers, stress and well-being

Social work is a stressful profession demanding practitioners respond to
the needs of vulnerable people often with limited resources (Michàlle
et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2018; Salloum et al., 2019; Collins, 2020; Beer
et al., 2021). Work-related stress can derive from excessive demands, un-
realistic deadlines and caseloads, limited support from colleagues and
managers, ambiguous job roles, bullying and harassment and the tension
between social work values and programme requirements (McGarrigle
and Walsh, 2011; Lonne et al., 2013; Egan et al., 2016; Dalphon, 2019;
Collins, 2020). As an emotions-based profession, social work can be tax-
ing leading to vicarious trauma or burnout if appropriate care is not pro-
vided to practitioners (Ingram, 2013). However, the workplace remains
one of the primary sources of stress for many social workers (Grant and
Kinman, 2014).
Minimising stress and assisting social workers to maintain their well-
being can be complicated, in part due to the slippery and ambiguous na-
ture of the term well-being (Karisto, 2018; Parnham, 2018). The World
Health Organisation (WHO) links well-being to physical and mental
health consistent with a biopsychosocial model of health (WHO, 1948).
Well-being is a positive rather than neutral state connected to living
well, including people’s participation in work and their community
(WHO, 1948). From an ecological perspective, well-being can only be
maintained through sustainability which can be challenging for those in
dynamic environments such as social workers (Karisto, 2018). Many so-
cial workers may find well-being is in part relationship based, relying on
reciprocal relationships between staff members (Ingram, 2013; Karisto,
2018; Salloum et al., 2019). However contemporary social work research
emphasises the maintenance of practitioner well-being using individual-
ised self-care activities, often performed outside of working hours.
Poor social worker well-being and stressful working can lead to a high
turnover of staff or exit from the profession (Chiller and Crisp, 2012). A
lack of care or harmful workplace cultures can also lead to an increased
likelihood of unethical practice (Lane et al., 2012). However, an organi-
sational culture that promotes worker safety and support, including a
‘shame-free’ approach to error and enquiry can also be important in car-
ing for practitioners (Shier et al., 2019). Managers may also show com-
mitment to practitioner well-being through the management of conflict,
Page 4 of 19 Michelle Newcomb

creating flexible working environments and by conducting regular super-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

vision (Davidson and Harrison, 2020).

Supervision and care within social work agencies

Social work supervision is a core practice component, ensuring ethical
and effective interventions occur (British Association of Social Workers,
2014; Kadushin and Harkness, 2014; Egan et al., 2016). Kadushin and
Harkness (2014) divide the functions of supervision into three categories:
(i) administrative; (ii) educative and (iii) supportive. Supervision may in-
volve all three functions, but a large variation, often dependent on the
organisational context, exists in how they are delivered to address client
issues or the individual social worker’s needs. Supervision allows for a
social worker to discuss their practice with another practitioner and ex-
plore the ‘functional aspects of practice’ whilst also engaging in critical
reflection (Ingham, 2012, p. 12). Traditionally social work supervision
has occurred via a single relationship between supervisor and supervisee
however this has changed over time to include group or external super-
vision (O’Donoghue and Tsui, 2015). Although supervision has an
organisational function it can also assist in maintaining social worker
morale, managing feelings of discontent or discouragement and provid-
ing supervisees with a sense of belonging, worth and security (Kadushin
and Harkness, 2014; Nickson et al., 2020).
Central to addressing the challenges faced in social work supervision
is understanding power dynamics that cause disconnection between the
supervisor and supervisee (Manthorpe et al., 2015; O’Neill and Fari~ na,
2018). As the supervisor is often also a social worker’s direct line man-
ager, they may not feel free to explore challenges (Egan et al., 2016).
This can be even more pronounced if other social identities and experi-
ences of privilege are considered, such as gender, race, class, education
and other forms of structural disadvantage (O’Neill and Farin ~a, 2018).
In some settings social workers might also find themselves supervised by
those from other disciplines such as psychologists or nurses potentially
leading to different disciplinary understandings of client issues, organisa-
tional priorities and problem solving (Beddoe and Howard, 2012; Hair,
2013; Manthorpe et al., 2015).
Supervision can occur within complex power relations where supervi-
sors may also act as leaders to supervisees whilst they may be simulta-
neously subordinate to higher management (Kadushin and Harkness,
2014; Egan et al., 2016). This may lead to supervision within organisa-
tions that is predominantly engaged in the administrative tasks of the
agency (Kadushin and Harkness, 2014; Zelnick and Abramovitz, 2020).
For managers, supervision may predominantly require the review of cli-
ent case management and performance issues (Manthorpe et al., 2015;
 Supportive Social Work Supervision as an Act of Care Page 5 of 19

Egan et al., 2016). Frequency of supervision can also impact social work-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

er’s perceptions of coping, with limited opportunities for supervision
linked to decreased engagement and satisfaction with role (Manthorpe
et al., 2015). For services funded externally, commonly by government in
Australia, supervision may be used as a mechanism to ensure services
are providing value for money or meeting political objectives (Egan
et al., 2016). Where supervision focuses on administrative tasks, these
may also be used to mitigate perceived risks to clients and organisational
funding and reputation. Supervision can therefore personalise risk,
emphasising the individual social worker’s accountability, safety and re-
sponsibility (Beddoe, 2012). The complex environment of social work
means feelings of dissatisfaction, frustration and fear can emerge,
emphasising the importance of supportive social work supervision (Chen
and Scannapieco, 2010; Chiller and Crisp, 2012; Ruch, 2012; Ingram,
2013; De Groot, 2016).

Supportive supervision

Maintaining the comfort, satisfaction and enjoyment within individuals

social work practice is essential to supportive supervision (Wonnacott,
2012; Kadushin and Harkness, 2014). Attention to social workers feel-
ings and professional quandaries allows supervision to become support-
ive rather than just administrative (Chen and Scannapieco, 2010;
Kadushin and Harkness, 2014). In ensuring staff well-being more admin-
istrative or client-based goals can be met (Kadushin and Harkness,
2014). Response to a range of emotional stressors may lead to supervi-
sors allaying anxiety, enhancing a workers certainty and conviction, lis-
tening to dissatisfaction, bolstering their faith and commitment to social
work, reinforcing strengths and professional worth, alleviating psycholog-
ical discomfort and helping a worker find emotional equilibrium (Hair,
2013; Kadushin and Harkness, 2014; Nickson et al., 2020). In engaging in
supportive supervision, the process of ‘caring for the carer’ occurs, alle-
viating disappointment, apathy and loss (Kadushin and Harkness, 2014).
Supportive social work supervision requires a willingness to engage in
the meanings and potential purpose and use of emotion in practice.
Emotions can be linked to behaviour and can lead to decision making
which may not be considered rational (Ingram, 2013). Avoidance of
emotions such as fear or anxiety can lead to confusion and poor decision
making (Rustin, 2005). Stanford (2011) found fear could undermine
practitioner’s ability to engage in change processes that could lead to
more responsive organisational systems. In turn, feelings of shame from
making poor decisions can lead social workers to not admitting to errors
(Sicora, 2017). Eighteen Australian social workers were interviewed for
Stanford’s (2011) study which found risk, including ethical and moral
Page 6 of 19 Michelle Newcomb

dilemmas could be explored only in supportive work environments. This

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

included the provision of regular supervision, opportunities to debrief
and the encouragement to be innovative (Stanford, 2011). Shier and
Graham (2015) found the subjective wellbeing and happiness of eleven
Canadian social workers was dependent on the broader socio-political
environment such as community perceptions, conflict with programme
mandates and changes to the social welfare system. External supervision
has also been mooted as a mechanism for offering emotional support to
social workers due to its reduced risk in disclosing individual weaknesses
(Beddoe, 2012). Whilst supportive supervision may provide an antidote
to the stresses, many social workers feel within risk-averse, challenging
workplaces it is not always provided to them. Rather than adapting their
own behaviour, social work organisations need to address workplace
functioning and a negative labour market to enhance social workers
well-being (Shier and Graham, 2015). This study originally sought to un-
derstand how organisations could better support social workers to en-
gage in acts of self-care. In using IPA, an unexpected theme emerged in
relation to supervision with all the study participants highlighting it as a
key mechanism social work organisations’ can use to support their well-
being and self-care.

Methodology
Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at

Griffith University. Research began only once written and verbal con-
sent was obtained from participants.

Participants

In total, eleven social workers were interviewed in late 2019 across

Eastern Australia. Within this sample, four identified as male and seven
identified as female, with practice experience ranging from one year to
several decades. Participants had current and previous experience in
working in a range of settings including hospitals, child protection, dis-
ability support, community work, domestic and family violence and
homelessness. Nine participants had completed four-year undergraduate
social work degrees, two had completed a qualifying Master of Social
Work and two participants were currently undertaking additional Ph.D.
studies. Four of the eleven participants had also provided supervision to
other social workers throughout their career.
 Supportive Social Work Supervision as an Act of Care Page 7 of 19

Data collection

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

Social workers in this study were recruited using two online Facebook
groups; entitled Australian Social Work Changemakers and Queensland
Social Workers. Recruitment via social media was deemed appropriate
for two reasons. Firstly, social work is an unregistered profession in
Australia making it difficult to reach a range of participants via a single
professional body (McCurdy et al., 2020). Secondly, social media allowed
for rapid recruitment of participants, especially those in geographically
distant locations or those engaged in online social work networking
(Desroches, 2020). All those who self-identified as social workers and
volunteered their time were interviewed.

Procedures

Due to the geographical distance across Australia, interviews were con-

ducted by the telephone and digitally recorded. Interviews lasted from
45 to 70 min and participants were offered the chance to debrief and ask
questions. Participants were asked a range of questions such as ‘What
does self-care mean to you?’ and ‘How does your organisation support
self-care practices?’ The interviews were transcribed, and all participants
were provided with a copy of the transcript. Participants were given the
opportunity to amend, clarify or change segments of their transcript. All
transcripts were anonymised and pseudonyms have been used.

Data analysis
IPA was the methodological approach used to understand and make
meaning of participants lived experience as social workers whilst also
understanding the process of the sense making used by the researcher
(Smith, 2009). IPA starts with the experience of the individual, then
moves to understanding the differences and similarities across a cohort
(Smith, 2009; Walker, 2018). IPA is useful for examining human experi-
ence it reveals how participants express their experience on their own
terms, rather than via a predefined category (Smith, 2009). Conforming
to an IPA approach, the transcripts were read multiple times by the re-
searcher and a research assistant (Smith, 2009). Notes were taken at this
time, but no specific samples were highlighted or prioritised at this stage.
Next, the date was entered into QSR NVivo (12) for further analysis
where possible themes were identified within each individual transcript.
This phase of data analysis produced numerous codes and sub-codes as
they are known in QSR NVivo (12) (Liamputtong, 2019). Themes were
noted in relation to their frequency and depth and eventually compared
Page 8 of 19 Michelle Newcomb

against each interview (Smith, 2009). Aligning with IPA techniques,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

analysis included comparison of contradictory ideas, interrogation of
metaphors and reference to time within the interviews (Smith, 2009). A
master list of codes emerged providing important knowledge about how
social workers see supervision as an act of organisational care.

Findings
Within this study participants highlighted supervision as a mechanism
for the organisation to show care for their professional practice and per-
sonal well-being. Using IPA, participants revealed four themes: (i) the
need for accessible, timely supervision; (ii) space for education and re-
flection; (iii) emotional support and (iv) alternate modes of supervision
including group or external. Participants carefully articulated supervisory
practices that allowed them to feel safe and explore their social work
practice. In sum, participants desired quality, supportive supervision that
reflects the organisation’s commitment to social workers well-being.

The need for accessible, timely supervision

All eleven participants in this study viewed supervision as an act of care
performed by the organisation; however, supervision was not always
available. For Kelly, newly qualified social worker supervision needed to
occur in an accessible and informal basis connected to her developing
competency: ‘Supervision is important at work. I like to talk to some-
body, to make sure that there’s nothing that I haven’t missed’.
Participants also discussed their difficulties in accessing supervision ei-
ther internally or externally from the organisation. Debbie, an experi-
enced social worker described struggling to access supervision in a
stressful environment:
a few times I had some hectic cases, and I asked the programs
coordinator who was the next person in charge, if I could debrief
afterwards and she said I am busy, we will catch up, and we never did.
So that sort of thing happened a lot.
For Ned, a lack of supervision not only showed a lack of care for indi-
vidual workers but also related to poor work performance impacting
clients:
Where an organisation might fall down is when people are not choosing
to use supervisory processes. They might be consistently not getting
things done or taking a lot of sick days because their morale might be
through the floor. I’m not convinced that the management structure
understands the importance of supervision at times.
 Supportive Social Work Supervision as an Act of Care Page 9 of 19

Even when workers displayed signs of potential vicarious trauma or

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

burnout supervision was not always offered to social workers.
Participants needed to engage in the tiring process of self-advocacy to
access regular supervision, even if it was deemed to be poor quality su-
pervision. This was especially the case for workers within community
agencies that employed a range of non-social work supervisors.
Participants described having to fight with superiors for supervision,
which sometimes led them to feeling ostracised. Debbie felt a lack of su-
pervision meant agencies were not meeting their duty of care to social
workers or clients: ‘If they want to get the best out of them for the peo-
ple they’re trying to support, which are vulnerable, suicidal people, then
they need to take care of them’. A lack of timely and accessible supervi-
sion also impacted on participants’ perceptions about quality supervi-
sion, with administrative components often being prioritised over
supportive elements of supervision.

Space for education and reflection

Practitioners in this study described the need for supervision to allow

them a space for education and reflection. Effective supervision allowed
participants to reflect on their practice and included checking in on their
emotional well-being. For Debbie this meant:
supervision or just having that space to reflect and to be asking a
question that would get you to think outside of what you know is a big
part of self-care, for me personally it helped me with clarity.
Effective supervision included an educative element which offered
perspective taking after critical incidents or crisis situations. Numerous
participants described how perspective taking and reflection enabled
them to understand if they had the right supervisor. For Angela supervi-
sion needed to include a supervisor who had experience of the practice
setting: ‘You need the right person—I can’t stress how much that’s so
important. You need someone that’s functioning at least at your capacity
or more’. Within this study reflective and educative components of su-
pervision were prized allowing workers to explore in the emotional ele-
ments of social work practice. For most participants supervision was a
frustrating experience because it lacked an educative and reflective fo-
cus, being concerned primarily with meeting organisational goals.
Rather than providing an optimum supervisory environment, the par-
ticipants within this study described supervision as a largely administra-
tive, unreflective process. Three participants described the process as
concentrating on the completion of tasks and ensuring case management
practices were followed. Simone described this as a process where she
was often quizzed: ‘you haven’t done this; you haven’t done that, and
Page 10 of 19 Michelle Newcomb

you should be doing this’. Debbie also described her frustration with

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

this kind of supervision which she described as task centred and ques-
tioned its purpose saying: ‘task orientated supervision; I think that’s
more management than supervision’.
Some practitioners described supervision that simply felt as if the su-
pervisor were ‘ticking boxes.’ Whilst supervision occurred it did not at-
tend to the social workers educative or reflective needs. Simone
described this process: ‘It is supervision to tick a box. To say that they’re
going to address self-care but helping the organisation is not actually
helping you’. For Simone supervision showed concern for organisational
outcomes but failed to show care for individual social workers, despite
their important role in service delivery. Anthony, a social worker for
decades highlighted how supervision could be a form of surveillance,
within an emphasis on the individual worker and their responsibilities.
Participants were however able to offer alternative understandings of su-
pervision which could illustrate the organisations care towards individual
social workers.

Emotional support

Tokenistic or administrative approaches to supervision were viewed as

unsupportive by participants. Regular, supportive supervision where the
supervisor ‘checked in’ with social workers also included reference to
self-care practices which occurred during or outside of working hours.
Most felt that supervision lacked emotional support, Debbie felt this im-
pacted on staff retention and productivity:
I think that people particularly in the community sector, would get so
much more out of their workers, there’d be less turnover, there’d be
more productivity, if they actually invested an hour a week or a
fortnight, into checking in and saying how are you going? Is there
anything we can look at together?
Participants felt that being emotionally supported within supervision
helped them develop as professionals allowing them to explore new
approaches and reflect on both their failings and successes. Debbie
extrapolates:
It’s an opportunity to think outside of what I know if I have the right
supervisor. But also, an opportunity for me to be vulnerable as a
practitioner and say I am struggling with this, or this challenged me, or I
was not comfortable with how I approached this, but I’m not sure how I
could have done it differently.
Supervision was seen by participants to mitigate stress and to solve
problems but also as a way the organisation could assist them in devel-
oping self-care practices and plans. For Alison, a former hospital social
 Supportive Social Work Supervision as an Act of Care Page 11 of 19

worker believed the topic of self-care should be ‘part of conversation

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

from the very beginning of supervision and it is regular theme’. In mov-
ing the topic of self-care into the supervisory conversation, it becomes
an issue supported by the organisation, potentially shifting the responsi-
bility from the individual.
Emotionally supportive supervision also included showing vulnerabil-
ity, but this was not always a straightforward process. Organisations that
favoured managerialist approaches to supervision were not perceived to
be emotionally supportive with some participants believing their emo-
tions may be perceived as a risk. Lewis, an experienced social worker
described his fear of being emotional vulnerable:
You know if someone isn’t travelling well, it’s not like you get to sit
down and you can be open about how you’re travelling because no one
wants to risk exposing themselves as being vulnerable at work.
Emotional support was considered an important part of supervision
for this cohort but, yet they remained aware of the risks involved in
expressing emotion. Being vulnerable could be viewed as weakness, or
even as a risk to clients or the organisation. For some participants, the
opportunity to engage in external or group supervision offered a safer
space for reflection and emotion exploration.

Alternate modes: Group and external supervision

In describing supervision, the participants of this study often referred to

previous or current experiences of group and external supervision. For
some participants, this meant working with specialist supervisors in areas
of practice such as trauma. External and group supervision was viewed
by three participants as a space for exploring emotional vulnerability
and self-care practices. Four of the eleven participants felt supervision
provided a collective atmosphere, allowing them to safely share difficult
experiences. Group supervision also allowed for a range of perspectives
and a space for critical reflection to occur. One worker discussed how
the ‘togetherness’ of group supervision created a sense of connection
foundational to their understanding of self-care. Participants felt group
supervision created a community of support where they could display
vulnerability without being viewed as ‘risky’. Anthony described being a
part of an informal, community of support which allowed him to be
emotional:
It’s a broad professional base, so mental health nurses, other therapists,
psychologists, social workers, so there’s a broadness of perspective in
that group, and that’s just lovely. I know that I can turn up there quite
vulnerable and be met with love and challenge. So, that kind of
resonance and support process is valuable for me.
Page 12 of 19 Michelle Newcomb

Although external or group supervision might seem to provide some

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

practitioners with a sense of care and community it was not the case for
all. The financial cost, time commitment and travel required for external
and group supervision were great for some, including those working in
not-for-profit agencies or parents. Participants felt the cost of external
supervision should lie with the employer rather than the individual. Four
participants described a current desire to pursue external supervision but
a lack of financial means. Simone explained why she ceased external su-
pervision: ‘it was a good hour and a bit travel for external supervision
and I just couldn’t afford to do it, even though I was getting a bit out of
it’.
Within this study it became apparent supervision was viewed by social
workers as an act of care. Some social workers had regular supervision
provided to them, but it was perceived to be lacking in quality.
Participants reported supervision that over emphasised the administra-
tive functions of their roles, ensuring organisational goals. This left little
if any room for supportive supervision to take place, with emotional ex-
pression perceived as risky by these participants. External and group su-
pervision were posited as alternative methods to the provision of
supervision allowing fostering of self-care behaviours. Yet, opportunities
for these types of supervision were rare. Social workers in this study
were desperate for supportive supervision that attended to their emo-
tional needs. At the very least supervision was a way to show care and
concern for them as people, its absence making them feel like organisa-
tional resources.

Discussion

Findings from this study suggest social workers view supervision as a po-
tential act of care showing the organisation’s commitment to their well-
being. The social workers voices presented here provide a deep and rich
understanding of the challenges they faced in finding supervision that
meet their emotional needs rather than just the administrative needs of
the organisation. Care work, such as social work can be emotionally tax-
ing and draining for individuals, requiring support from managers and
organisations (Hochschild, 2012; Ingram, 2013; Cooper, 2017; Beer et al.,
2021). Traditionally social work has provided this support through mech-
anisms such as supervision however contemporary social work discourse
focuses on individualised mechanism for ensure well-being such as self-
care (Weinberg, 2014). The findings of this study suggest that self-care
alone cannot sustain social workers’ well-being and care through the
provision of supportive supervision plays a key role.
The findings of this study emphasised the importance of regular, in-
tentional one to one supportive supervision as a mechanism for showing
 Supportive Social Work Supervision as an Act of Care Page 13 of 19

care. Based on the findings of this study, a conceptual model (Figure 1)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

shows how supervision can be understood as an act of care.
Participants recounted the need for supervision that provided: (i) was
accessible and timely; (ii) provided educative and reflective aspects for
professional growth; (iii) was emotionally supportive and (iv) presented
the potential for alternate modes of delivery including group and exter-
nal supervision. It is evident that by ignoring social workers desire for
supportive supervision organisations risk silencing practitioners’ stress
and emotional struggles, which can potentially lead to burn out or poor
practice (Chiller and Crisp, 2012).
The provision of supervision, which is accessible and timely, is the first
step for organisations that wish to show genuine, authentic care for so-
cial workers. By not providing supervision, organisations risk social
workers potentially choosing to hide their stress or poor well-being
alongside developing a cynical belief that the organisation does not care
for them (Wever and Zell, 2018). In the context of managerialist practi-
ces, a lack of supervision may leave social workers feeling as if they are
expendable resources rather than valued professionals. Social workers in
this study were not asking for the provision of explicit self-care activities
to be provided by the organisation or the provision of costly employee
assistance programmes, rather than wanted to feel the organisation gen-
uinely cared about their well-being and personhood (Wever and Zell,
2018). By prioritising supervision and ensuring it is accessible and timely
organisations can show genuine, authentic care for social workers within
minimal expensive or inconvenience. In expecting them to care for

Figure 1: Supervision as an act of care.

Page 14 of 19 Michelle Newcomb

others, participants felt organisations seemed to forget the importance of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

‘caring for the carers’ through supportive supervision.
The findings from this study align with existing social work supervi-
sion research, highlighting the need for an educative and reflective ele-
ment (Chiller and Crisp, 2012; O’Donoghue and Tsui, 2012; Wonnacott,
2012; Kadushin and Harkness, 2014; Nickson et al., 2020). Whilst some
social workers in this study did receive supervision, they often felt it was
simply performed to ‘tick the boxes’ in relation to case management or
key performance indicators. Many also recounted supervision as a form
of surveillance, desired to minimise real or perceived risks within their
practice (Egan et al., 2016). If organisations fail to provide supportive su-
pervision, they also miss the opportunity to build a sense of resonance,
understanding and praxis with a wider team. Spending time with social
workers in supervision to engage in critical reflection or education is a
caring mechanism for the development of on-going safe, effective and
potentially innovative practice.
An unsurprising finding in this study was social workers claims to feel-
ing uncomfortable exploring emotions within supervision. Despite claims
about social worker’s requirement to use deep emotion, the participants
viewed the display of emotion as risky (Ingram, 2013; Cooper, 2017).
Emotion was deeply connected with the idea of competence, therefore
trust between the supervisor and supervisee was needed to explore the
practice and professional implications of emotion. The implications of
this study confirm that supervisors need to be prepared for potentially
taxing, awkward or difficult conversations if they are to provide support-
ive supervision. If experienced social workers are the one’s providing su-
pervision, they bring with them highly developed communication and
problem-solving skills useful for supportive supervision (Nickson et al.,
2020). Rather than seeing emotion as a risk to practice, it can be an im-
portant trigger for education and reflection during supervision.
Some organisations may find it difficult to even provide supervision,
suggesting benefits in using external or group supervision. Outside of
the managerialist cultures of many organisations alternate modes of su-
pervision may allow workers to explore emotions more freely through
reflection and educative aspects of supervision. As found in this study
access to external supervision is often costly and not available to all
practitioners. Although external supervision may take responsibility
away from organisations for attending to social workers’ needs, it may
be better than no supervision (Beddoe, 2012).
Whilst there is no easy fix for issues such as workload, a lack of fund-
ing or poor pay, supportive supervision provides a mechanism for col-
lecting information and data about social workers’ struggles and
victories. By exploring issues of marginalisation supervisors and social
workers can query obstacles in daily life, instilling a sense of hope and
optimism (Wever and Zell, 2018). In engaging in supportive supervision
 Supportive Social Work Supervision as an Act of Care Page 15 of 19

social workers can share stories and reflections, creating new narratives

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

of resistance which can be vital for advocating for change within an or-
ganisation and a wider service sector (Noble, 2020). By ignoring or
avoiding the practice of supportive supervision in favour of more mana-
gerialist processes social work succumbs to neoliberal demands.
Considering the benefits provided to social work agencies through super-
vision, its absence suggests managers and organisations deep discomfort
with the process. Further support from the AASW or universities in de-
veloping increased opportunities for training or qualifications in supervi-
sion could also assist in increasing supervisor confidence and capacity.
Our findings suggest supportive supervision is considered an important
component to social worker’s practice and wellbeing. This study high-
lights the toll social work practice can take on practitioners and the sub-
sequent value they place upon supportive supervision (Zelnick and
Abramovitz, 2020). Within managerialist organisations the provision of
supportive supervision which prioritises attentiveness, responsibility, nur-
turance, compassion and the needs of front-line social workers is a radi-
cal practice, which prioritises the social justice mission off social work
(Tronto, 2015).

Limitations

This research was limited due to the small size of the sample which can-
not be considered representative of all social workers in Australia. The
voice of clients is missing from the research, therefore we are unable to
understand the contribution supportive supervision makes to their lives
(O’Donoghue and Tsui, 2015). The experience of supervisors in provid-
ing supportive supervision was also absent. Further research to examine
why supportive supervision is not provided and how supervisors can in-
clude this into their daily practice is required. However, the rich, thick
description of supportive supervision provided here is transferable to a
range of social work contexts, ensuring the trustworthiness of this study
(Liamputtong, 2019).

Conclusion
The findings of this study mirror existing understandings of what consti-
tutes effective social work supervision. Considering the plethora of exist-
ing research as to the benefits of supportive supervision is unclear is
why social work organisations consistently fail in providing it (Chen and
Scannapieco, 2010; Kadushin and Harkness, 2014; Egan et al., 2016).
This study contributes to this knowledge by highlighting the professional
and personal relevance of supportive supervision in showing care to
Page 16 of 19 Michelle Newcomb

social workers from the organisation. In providing supportive supervision

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

social work agencies can create a deep resonance between the values
and ethics of individuals, the profession and organisations for the better-
ment of clients.

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge Ms Madeline Bauer who provided consider-
able research support and assistance during her final social work place-
ment. She read deeply and critically on the topic of social work
supervision and organisational culture which contributed to this article. I
wish her the very best in her social work career.

Funding
This research was partially funded by the Griffith University School of
Human Services and Social Work.

References

Ashley-Binge, S. and Cousins, C. (2020) ‘Individual and organisational practices

addressing social workers’ experiences of vicarious trauma’, Practice, 32(3), pp.
191–207.
Beddoe, L. (2012) ‘External supervision in social work: Power, space, risk, and the
search for safety’, Australian Social Work, 65(2), pp. 197–213.
Beddoe, L. and Howard, F. (2012) ‘Interprofessional supervision in social work and
psychology: Mandates and (inter) professional relationships’, The Clinical
Supervisor, 31(2), pp. 178–202.
Beer, O. W. J., Phillips, R., Letson, M. M. and Wolf, K. G. (2021) ‘Personal and pro-
fessional impacts of work-related stress alleviation strategies among child welfare
workers in child advocacy center settings’, Children and Youth Services Review,
122, 105904.
British Association of Social Workers. (2014) Code of Ethics. Retrieved 8 October
2020. Available online at https://www.basw.co.uk/about-basw/code-ethics.
Chen, S.-Y. and Scannapieco, M. (2010) ‘The influence of job satisfaction on child
welfare worker’s desire to stay: An examination of the interaction effect of self-ef-
ficacy and supportive supervision’, Children and Youth Services Review, 32(4), pp.
482–6.
Chiller, P. and Crisp, B. R. (2012) ‘Professional supervision: A workforce retention
strategy for social work?’, Australian Social Work, 65(2), pp. 232–42.
Collins, S. (2020) ‘Social workers and self-care: A promoted yet unexamined con-
cept?’, Practice (Birmingham, England), 33, 1–16.
Cooper, A. (2017) ‘The use of self in social work practice’, in Bower, M. and
Solomon, R. (eds), What Social Workers Need to Know: A Psychoanalytic
Approach, 1st edn, London, Taylor and Francis.
 Supportive Social Work Supervision as an Act of Care Page 17 of 19

Dalphon, H. (2019) ‘Self-care techniques for social workers: Achieving an ethical har-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

mony between work and well-being’, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, 29(1), pp. 85–95.
Davidson, D. and Harrison, G. (2020) ‘Heard but not seen: Exploring youth counsel-
lors’ experiences of telephone counselling’, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work,
32(1), pp. 73–85.
De Groot, S. G. (2016) Responsive Leadership in Social Services: A Practical
Approach for Optimizing Engagement and Performance, Los Angeles, California,
SAGE.
Desroches, M. L. (2020) ‘Facebook recruitment of nurses as research participants:
Methodological considerations’, Applied Nursing Research 54, 151282.
Egan, R., Maidment, J. and Connolly, M. (2016) ‘Who is watching whom?
Surveillance in Australian social work supervision’, British Journal of Social Work,
46(6), pp. 1617–35.
Grant, L. and Kinman, G. (2014) Developing Resilience for Social Work Practice,
London, Palgrave.
Hair, H. J. (2013) ‘The purpose and duration of supervision, and the training and dis-
cipline of supervisors: What social workers say they need to provide effective serv-
ices’, British Journal of Social Work, 43(8), pp. 1562–88.
Hochschild, A. R. (2012) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling,
Berkeley, University of California Press.
Ingram, R. (2013) ‘Emotions, social work practice and supervision: an uneasy alli-
ance?’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 27(1), pp. 5–19.
Kadushin, A. and Harkness, D. (2014) Supervision in Social Work, 5th edn, New
York, Columbia University Press.
Karisto, A. (2018) ‘Reciprocal relationships and well-being: Implications for social
work and social policy’, in Munn-Giddings, C., Tarkiainen, L., and Törrönen,
M.(eds), Advances in Social Work, 1st edn, New York, Routledge.
Lane, F. J., Shaw, L. R., Young, M. E. and Bourgeois, P. J. (2012) ‘Rehabilitation
counsellors’ perceptions of ethical workplace culture and the influence on ethical
behavior’, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55(4), pp. 219–31.
Liamputtong, P. (2019) Qualitative Research Methods, 5th edn, Docklands, VIC,
Oxford University Press.
Lonne, B., Harries, M. and Lantz, S. (2013) ‘Workforce development: A pathway to
reforming child protection systems in Australia’, British Journal of Social Work,
43(8), pp. 1630–48.
Manthorpe, J., Moriarty, J., Hussein, S., Stevens, M. and 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.
McCurdy, S., Sreekumar, S. and Mendes, P. (2020) ‘Is there a case for the registration
of social workers in Australia?’, International Social Work, 63(1), pp. 18–29.
McGarrigle, T. and Walsh, C. A. (2011) ‘Mindfulness, self-care, and wellness in social
work: Effects of contemplative training’, Journal of Religion and Spirituality in
Social Work, 30(3), pp. 212–33.
Michàlle, E., Mor, B., Dnika, J. T., Harold, P. and Bin, X. (2009) ‘The impact of su-
pervision on worker outcomes: A meta-analysis’, The Social Service Review, 83(1),
pp. 3–32.
Page 18 of 19 Michelle Newcomb

Miller, J., Donohue-Dioh, J., Niu, C. and Shalash, N. (2018) ‘Exploring the self-care

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

practices of child welfare workers: A research brief’, Children and Youth Services
Review, 84, 137–42.
Nickson, A. M., Carter, M.-A. and Francis, A. P. (2020) Supervision and Professional
Development in Social Work Practice, New Delhi, Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd.
Noble, C. (2020) ‘Bell hooks trilogy’, in Morley C., Ablett P., Noble, C., and
Cowden, S. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Pedagogies for Social
Work, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.
O’Donoghue, K. (2015) ‘Issues and challenges facing social work supervision in the
twenty-first century’, China Journal of Social Work, 8(2), pp. 136–49.
O’Donoghue, K. and Tsui, M.-S. (2012) ‘Towards a professional supervision culture:
The development of social work supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand’,
International Social Work, 55(1), pp. 5–28.
O’Donoghue, K. and Tsui, M.-S. (2015) ‘Social work supervision research
(1970–2010): The way we were and the way ahead’, British Journal of Social
Work, 45(2), pp. 616–33.
O’Neill, P. and Fari~ na, M. (2018) ‘Constructing critical conversations in social
work supervision: Creating change’, Clinical Social Work Journal, 46(4),
pp. 298–309.
Parnham, A. (2018) ‘Wholistic well-being and happiness; psychosocial-spiritual per-
spectives’, in Bonner, A. (ed.), Social Determinants of Health, 1 edn, Bristol,
Bristol University Press, pp. 29–40.
Ruch, G. (2012) ‘Where have all the feelings gone? Developing reflective and rela-
tionship-based management in child-care social work’, British Journal of Social
Work, 42(7), pp. 1315–32.
Rustin, M. (2005) ‘Conceptual analysis of critical moments in Victoria Climbié’s life’,
Child and Family Social Work, 10(1), pp. 11–9.
Salloum, A., Choi, M. J. and Stover, C. S. (2019) ‘Exploratory study on the role of
trauma-informed self-care on child welfare workers’ mental health’, Children and
Youth Services Review, 101, 299–306.
Shier, M. L. and Graham, J. R. (2015) ‘Subjective well-being, social work, and the en-
vironment: The impact of the socio-political context of practice on social worker
happiness’, Journal of Social Work, 15(1), pp. 3–23.
Shier, M. L., Turpin, A., Nicholas, D. B. and Graham, J. R. (2019) ‘Dynamics of a
culture of workplace safety in human service organizations: A qualitative analysis’,
International Social Work, 62(6), pp. 1561–74.
Sicora, A. (2017) ‘Reflective practice, risk and mistakes in social work’, Journal of
Social Work Practice, 31(4), pp. 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2017.
1394823.
Smith, J. A. (2009) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method, and
Research, Los Angeles, SAGE.
Stanford, S. N. (2011) ‘Constructing moral responses to risk: A framework for hope-
ful social work practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 41(8), pp. 1514–31.
Tronto, J. C. (2015) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care, 1st
edn, New York, Routledge.
Turner-Daly, B. and Jack, G. (2017) ‘Rhetoric vs. reality in social work supervision:
the experiences of a group of child care social workers in England’, Child &
Family Social Work, 22(1), pp. 36–46.
 Supportive Social Work Supervision as an Act of Care Page 19 of 19

Walker, S. (2018) Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: Identifying the Relational

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcab074/6276555 by University of New England user on 29 May 2021

in Systemic Inquiry. Retrieved 20 September 2020. Available online at https://meth
ods.sagepub.com/case/interpretive-phenomenological-analysis-relational-in-sys
temic-inquiry.
Weinberg, M. (2014) ‘The ideological dilemma of subordination of self versus self--
care: Identity construction of the ‘ethical social worker’, Discourse & Society,
25(1), pp. 84–99.
Wever, C. and Zell, S. (2018) ‘Re-working self-care’, in Pease, B., Vreugdenhil, A.,
and Stanford S.(eds), Critical Ethics of Care in Social Work: Transforming the
Politics and Practices of Caring, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.
Wonnacott, J. (2012) Mastering Social Work Supervision, London, Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Zelnick, J. R. and Abramovitz, M. (2020) ‘The perils of privatization: Bringing the
business model into human services’, Social Work, 65(3), pp. 213–24.