Clinical Supervision Handbook - CAMH Knowledge Exchange ...

Conceptualization of Clinical Supervision: A Review of the Literature
Toward an evidence-base for clinical social work supervision
Does the research on social work supervision provide evidence to support this
conceptual model and related principles and practices? Two recent reviews of the
empirical research on social work supervision, one spanning 1970–1995 (Tsui, 1997)
and one spanning 1994–2004 (Bogo & McKnight, 2005) uncovered a dearth of studies
in this regard. The existing studies used small sample sizes, used exploratory, survey
and cross-sectional designs; and contributed modestly to theory-building or providing
evidence for best practices. The studies reviewed, however, did offer some support
for some elements identified in the conceptual literature. For example, Erera and
Lazar (1994) found supervision consisted of the three major functions: administrative,
educational and supportive. A number of studies investigated the organizational
context of supervision and found that the agency’s mandate and focus shape the nature
of supervision provided (Berger & Mizrahi, 2001; Gibelman & Schervish, 1995,
1997; Gleeson & Philbin, 1996). Organizational climate affects supervisors’ and staff
performance and is positively associated with an environment that emphasizes task
orientation, staff involvement, autonomy and clarity of rules (Eisikovits et al., 1985).
Organizational climate also affects satisfaction with greater levels of trust among
colleagues associated with higher satisfaction in child welfare (Silver et al., 1997).
The influential nature of the supervisory relationship was supported (Hensley, 2002).
Administrative, educational and supportive aspects were valued by supervisees and
seen in behaviours such as availability, delegated responsibility to supervisees who
can undertake a task (Granvold, 1978; York, 1996), are knowledgeable about tasks
and skills (Drake & Washeck, 1998; Himle, et al., 1989), are able to relate techniques
to theory (Drake & Washeck, 1998), provide instrumental support (Himle et al., 1989)
and serve as a role model (Drake & Washeck, 1998; Hensley, 2002). General support
was associated with higher worker satisfaction (Newsome & Pillari, 1991; Rauktis &
Koeske, 1994). Workers were more satisfied when they perceived supervisors’ use of
authority as based on their knowledge and skill rather than their middle manager
role (Munson, 1993) and when supervisors communicated in a mutual style (Bowers,
et al., 1999; York & Denton, 1990).
105