A supervisory model for child care

A Supervisory Model for Child Care

William Rowe King's College, London, Ontario

Richard Shields Sarnia-Lambton Centre for Children and Youth, Sarnia, Ontario

ABSTRACT." The training and education of child care workers has undergone important changes, and the spectrum of professional preparation now ranges from agency-based in-service training to graduate level education. As a result, the role of supervision in child care is being re-assessed. This paper presents the historical in- fluences and current conceptualizations of the supervisory relationship in social work, psychology and child care. An innovative approach to supervision based on a role systems model and an adaptation of the Johari Window is presented. The model is shown to be applicable and appropriate to child care supervision given its current state of development.

At no other period in the development of child care has the need to define the nature and purpose of the supervisory relationship been more evident. Training and education of child care workers in North America is advancing at a rapid pace. What started as agency based in-service training in the 1950's has evolved into a multi-tiered educational structure which allows child care practitioners to advance to graduate level training. This development has most certainly contributed to a growing sense of professionalism in the field.

One measure of professionalism is the degree to which a profession retains autonomy and monopoly over its training centers (Greenwood, 1974). Until recently, training in child care was conducted largely by social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists in agencies and in- stitutions that housed and treated children. As the child care profession has grown, responsibility for training has moved from agency in-service training to colleges and universities with concomitant super- vised practicum experiences. I t is this supervision experience which this paper will explore in detail.

Professional literature on child care has paid little attention to supervision in general, or the developing nature of the supervisory relationship in particular. Initial conceptions of supervision described it as an administrative process useful in gett ing the job done, main- taining worker morale and providing organizational accountability (Fant & Ross, 1979}. In order to accomplish this, supervisors promoted

Requests for reprints should be addressed to William Rowe, King's College, 266 Epworth Avenue, London, Ontario, N6A 2M3, Canada.

Child Care Quarterly, 14(4), Winter 1985 262 ©1985 by Human Sciences Press

William Rowe and Richard Shields 263

the transmission of knowledge and skill from experienced workers to those less experienced. Support and tolerance in the supervisory relationship were identified as conditions necessary for this process to occur {Klein, 1975}. Examples of this definition may be found in paralleling the supervisory models developed by Doherty {1976} and Kurtz {1976} which reflect a focus on the development of competency behaviors in the worker. This is a significant contribution because well-controlled, competency-based training procedures can ensure minimum skills' levels. This can have the effect of improving stand- ards of service and accountability. Competency-based training approaches were developed in the field of education and are most ef- fective where there are clear, prescribed, tasks and activities. Com- petency based approaches have been experimented with in professional training programs but have found only modest application in practice settings. These approaches may be insufficient for the complexities of advanced professional practice.

Etzioni's {1969} research has indicated that less trained workers {as child care has been in the past} want detailed supervision which can be obtained on the job, while more highly trained professionals want guidance from people well-versed in social and psychological theories. The child care worker of the late 80s will be one more formally and highly trained than in the past. Therefore, revisions in current conceptualizations of the supervisory relationship are necessary.

An alternative to the competency based approach, compatible with the role systems model outlined in this paper has been developed by Malcolm Knowles {1975). He describes the adult learner as a poten- tially seIf-directed organism whose experience is a rich resource for learning and who benefits from being mutually involved in defining what his or her learning needs are and the methods to be used to satisfy those needs. He points out that certain conditions are necessary for self-directed learning to take place. I t begins with setting a climate where mutual respect, t rust and a clarity of respective roles permit purposeful dialogue to take place. Once these conditions are in place, a self-assessment can begin in order to determine learning needs. The assessment is based on identifying the desired behaviors or competencies one wishes to acquire, determining one's present level of performance in those areas, and then determining the gap between present and desired performance levels. This examination can provide the data necessary to define the learning objectives. I t is then necessary to determine what the best available resources are for meeting those objectives. The selection will depend on whether one wants to acquire new knowledge {information}, understanding (application of information}, skills {performance}, att i tudes {adoption of

264 Child Care Quarterly

new feelings) or values {arrangement or beliefs). Finally, this needs an evaluation component to provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of the inquiry.

The manner in which these guidelines become concrete teaching and learning tasks and objectives depends on the setting, the organizational structure and the particular individuals involved. In some circumstances, a great deal of specificity is necessary whereas, other circumstances warrant more general goals and objectives. The experience of the authors in applying the model both as supervisors and supervisees is that the initial contracting demands more thought and specificity than is the norm for establishing a supervisory relationship. However, the model is quickly internalized and the supervisory relationship becomes characterized by autonomous functioning, co- operative learning and mutual exploration as opposed to the dependency, indoctrination and limits that so often characterize such relationships.

Historical Influence in Supervision

It is via clinical supervision that the skills and essential character of a helping profession are developed and passed on. Since child care received its initial impetus and training from social workers and psychologists, it is appropriate to consider the models of clinical supervision used by these professions in order to understand what might be appropriate for child care.

Both social work and psychology appear to have developed two major models of supervision historically. These approaches may be generally categorized as the apprentice and growth models {Wijnberg & Schwartz, 1977}. The apprentice model has been typified by a superior/subordinate, or teacher/student relationship. In this approach, the focus was primarily didactic or instructional. In social work, the master-apprentice relationship developed, partly because of the great reliance on volunteers in the early days of the profession, and partly because of the paucity of dynamic behavioral theories available to the workers.

In clinical psychology, the early system of teaching was via apprenticeship to an analyst. The neophyte learned essentially by imitating the role model. Supervisors who preferred this educational type of supervision by and large believed that matters of a therapeutic nature should be referred to the supervisee's own therapist {Wolberg, 1954; Tarachow, 1963). They recognized the development of the individual as an important part of competent practice, but suggested


that such development should not be the focus of the supervisory relationship. Attention to task, learning, and skill development were the hallmarks of the apprenticeship approach.

The growth or self-awareness model also appears to be rooted in the training history of both social work and psychology. This model appears to be related to the acceptance and development of dynamic psychological theories. As the ideas of Freud, Adler, and Rank gained prominence, social workers like Towle, Hamilton, and Taft professed the importance of the trainee's individual growth and psychological development as a helping professional. Taft (1950) highlighted this position eloquently.

To believe in the possibility of growth for the client, one has to have known the release of growth in the self through help consciously sought and professionally controlled, tp. 108)

A similar approach was embraced in psychology during the same period. The emphasis in supervision was on the character structure of the novice therapist. The essential focus of supervision became therapeutic and "personal growth" was highlighted. This approach, while appropriate for some learners, was an anxiety producing and difficult experience for others. The growth model in both social work and psychology facilitated in depth understanding and skill development usually in one or another of the specific therapeutic modalities. The supervisory relationship was like that of therapist-patient, or helper- helpee.

Over many years, debate centered on the value and/or utility of one approach over the other. Many saw the apprenticeship model as theoretically amorphous and agency specific. Others suggested that the growth model was often theoretically myopic and constricting. Some supervisors recognized the merit of a blended approach to supervision and at tempted to incorporate the valuable points of both models in their supervision of students and workers. This, in addition to the influence of progressive management and organizational theories on the human services, laid the foundation for a third model of supervision to develop. This model is reflected in administrative in- novations like management by objectives and performance appraisal systems. As it concerns the supervisory relationship, it is referred to in this work as the "role systems model." The development and rationale of the role systems model are described later in this paper. Prior to that, however, an overview of some of the dysfunctional aspects of traditional supervisory styles as experienced by the consumer are presented.


Objectionable Supervisory Styles

Rosenblatt and Mayer {1975) have outlined a series of student reported objectionable supervisory styles which may act as behavioral indicators of these undesirable relationships. While this particular study was limited to students, the objectional styles appear relevant to most supervisory situations. The first of these has been labelled "constrictive" supervision. This mode results in an infringement on supervisee autonomy and is characterized by its interfering nature. The supervisees may find themselves denied appropriate discretionary control over their work and have decisions for case management forced upon them. Other supervisees may find their supervisors take an over- zealous interest in their work by way of constantly questioning and ad- vising them as to possibilities for future direction with their clients. Both behaviors may result in resentment and growing performance anxiety on the part of the worker.

"Amorphous" supervision represents the condition appearing at the opposite end of the continuum. With this style, the supervisor offers little clarity of expectations and minimal guidance. The supervisee is expected to function at levels which may extend beyond his or her current skill level and knowledge base. Some supervisors express an- noyance that a supervisee would demonstrate hesitation in his or her work and infer a need for change without any specificity. Supervisees react with confusion in this situation and resentment towards their supervisors.

"Unsupportive" supervision is a manner of supervisor interaction which is described as cold, aloof and lacking empathy for the supervisees' concerns. The supervisor may fail to allay the anxieties that supervisees bring to clinical practice and in some cases even exacer- bate the difficulties. Supervisees may experience a loss of self-esteem and sensitivity to criticism resulting in a hesitation to self-disclose during supervisory contact.

Perhaps most objectionable of the reported styles was that of "therapeutic" supervision. The supervisor assumes that certain ac- tions or feelings occurring during work are the result of deficiencies in the supervisee's personality. This creates a situation where objections to a supervisor's appraisals can be viewed as resistance to change, thereby confirming the supervisee's personality deficit. Supervisees reported that the "therapeutic" context for supervision was the most distressing supervisory style. It raised serious questions for individuals about their capability to do the work. After all, a supervisee who is told he or she has dependency needs cannot quickly rectify this situation to bring about the desired improvement. The result is often increased vulnerability on the part of the supervisee.


An inherent shortcoming of all the aforementioned objectable practices is their failure to acknowledge the potential for both supervisor and supervisee to be mutual sources of gain in the process of supervision. Each brings skills, knowledge and insights of benefit to the development of the other. When the relationship is constructed so as to appear that this is true for just one of the members, significant loss occurs before supervision begins. This factor is an important con- sideration for supervisory practices in child care. If we retain outdated styles which encourage worker dependency, professional growth may be retarded. Mandell (1973) has argued the same in social work. Prolonged individual supervision may achieve uniformity of practice, but at the expense of creativity and innovation. The need exists to ap- ply other supervisory methods that have the potential to lead the worker to increased spontaneity and self-confidence while, at the same time, requiring him/her to select the direction for development.

Role Systems Approach

Partly in response to problems posed in the preceding section and partly in response to the limitations inherent in the apprenticeship and the growth models of supervision, a third approach began to take form in the late sixties and early seventies. This approach may be referred to as the "role systems model" (Wijnberg and Schwartz, 1977}, in that it is related to the concepts of social systems and role theory as they are expressed in the supervisory relationship. Social systems refer to Talcott Parsons' concepts of interplay of communications, role expectations, and mechanisms of control (Parsons, 1951}. Although Par- sons also contributed to role theory, a more helpful ex- plication of role theory as it relates to this work is offered by Sarbin (1954).

In the field of psychology, Flemming and Benedek (1966} have at- tempted to bridge the two traditional contrasting views of supervision by pointing to the need for the supervisor to enter into different roles as appropriate to the specifics of the situation. In the field of social work, Wijnberg and Schwartz (1977) developed the role systems model by shifting from the traditional supervisory focus on the supervisee's personality or skill development to an emphasis on the supervisor/ supervisee relationship. They recommended a model that provides "a framework for discussing negotiable and non-negotiable behaviors, skills and identities from the perspective of both the student and the field instructor" IPg. 109}. In their particular application of the role systems model, Wijnberg and Schwartz (1977} spoke to the value of


the approach as it clarifies reality and reduces frustration via the ex- plication of role expectations, performance, the nature of communication and the mechanisms of control.

The role systems model appears to incorporate the valuable com- ponents of both the apprenticeship and growth models of supervision and add qualities that promote the integrity of the supervisor and the autonomy of the supervisee. Such a model is appropriate for child care given its current state of development.

Characterizing the Supervisory Relationship

A particular model that is characteristic of role systems approaches and could be adapted to the child care supervisor/supervisee relationship can be seen in the "Johari Window" (Luft, 1970}. The Johari Win- dow is a graphic model of intra- and interpersonal relations that has been used in assessing and improving interaction between people. Originally, the model was developed to help illustrate and chronicle an individual's relationship with a group or social system (see Figure 1).

This model has proven to be usehfl as a heuristic device for speculating about human relations in general, and in representing or illustrating interaction. It appears to be particularly helpful when ap-

Known Not known to self to self

Known to Others

Not Known to others

1

Open

3

Hidden

2

Blind

4

Unknown

(Luft, 1970} Quadrant i, the area of free activity, or open area, refers to behavior and motivation

known to self and known to others. Quadrant 2, the blind area, is where others can see things in ourselves of which we are

unaware. Quadrant 3, the avoided or hidden area, represents things we know but do not reveal

to others (e.g., a hidden agenda or mat ters about which we have sensitive feelings). Quadrant 4, the area of unknown activity, points to the area where neither the in-

dividual nor others are aware of certain behaviors or motives (Luft, 1970).

FIGURE 1. Johari Window


plied to relationships where different roles are assigned, and where a power differential is evident. Figure 2 shows how the model is used to represent an aspect of the supervisor/supervisee relationship.

The model appears beneficial to the establishment and organization of the supervisee-supervisor relationship, but it also has value for the maintenance and continuity of the relationship. All too often a worker maintains or is pushed to maintain the learner or apprentice role even after knowledge has been acquired or expertise attained. The Johari Window model promotes the transfer from Quadrants 2, 3, and 4 to Quadrant I when knowledge or expertise has been gained. In this manner, the relationship remains dynamic and the purpose uncluttered.

Supervisee Supervisee {has) (has not)

Supervisor {has}

Supervisor {has not)

Knowledge/Expertise shared equally by both supervisee and supervisor 3

Supervisee-Expert knowledgeable: Supervisor not

2

Supervisor-Expert knowledgeable: Supervisee not

4

Neither supervisee nor supervisor expert or knowledgeable

Quadrant I of the Johari Window represents those areas where both supervisee and supervisor share the same knowledge and expertise. An example of this could be, general knowledge and understanding, child care knowledge and philosophy, or a particular shared interest such as play therapy or family intervention. This quadrant would establish the base for collegial communication and sharing that is necessary for the development of a relationship where mutual learning and discovery will take place.

Quadrant 2 represents the area where the supervisor has knowledge and expertise and the supervisee does not. By the very purpose of the supervisee-supervisor relationship one might think that this would be the area of greatest significance. This is not necessarily the case, however, since only certain aspects of the supervisor's knowledge and expertise will be applicable to the individual supervisory relationship.

Quadrant 3 represents the area where the supervisee has knowledge and expertise and the supervisor does not. It is crucial to the establishment of a relationship that promotes healthy inquiry that this also be recognized. The supervisee's knowledge and expertise may be an aspect of the main area of study, or it may be tangential. In either case, it helps to establish the mutually beneficial nature of the relationship that should be characteristic of the supervisee-supervisor dyad.

Quadrant 4 represents the area where neither supervisee nor supervisor have knowledge or expertise. This is likely to be the area most difficult to identify and work with. Here both supervisee and supervisor are cast in the vulnerable role of learner, searcher, and novitiate. However, there will undoubtedly be greater benefit in the two individuals sharing their method of inquiry and tolerance of ignorance and beginnings.

F I G U R E 2. A Model of Supervisor/Supervisee Interaction


Application

The model presented in this paper is a conceptualization of the supervisory relationship, not a substitute for proven supervisory skills referred to in the introduction. Neither is it intended to diminish supervisory processes such as the example provided by Eisikovits and Gutt- man {1983}, in which they outline a four-step process of experiential learning in supervision. Instead, it advocates that supervision be viewed as a role or a vehicle, not an end product in itself, its main ob- jective being the establishment and maintenance of quality child care

• with all its vicissitudes and meanings. As such, the Johari Window model provides a method of organizing the supervisory relationship in a manner that undergirds and facilitates the autonomous, self-directed nature of adult learning which presumably provides the metaphor for autonomous, self-directed and mature professional activity.

The model appears to adapt readily to a variety of supervisor/supervisee situations. For example, the model was applied to a situation where a supervisee who had a wealth of experience was assigned to an equally experienced supervisor. Such situations are often characterized by competition, defensiveness or resignation. In this case, however, both workers were able to recognize and designate their individual and collective area of competence. As a result, they formed a supervisory relationship based on mutuality and equality. The role of teacher/learner and mentor/intern became interchangeable. Tasks and projects were accomplished quickly with a sense of mutual pride and ownership. Quadrant 4 activities quickly became a major focus for both workers and supervision was viewed as exciting and enjoyable.

The model was also useful in supporting the parallel movement of a worker from community service to children's treatment. The supervisor began the relationship by presenting the model and assisting the worker to identify aspects of previous experience which would be potential resources for them both as they began work together. It was particularly helpful to use the "Johari Window" outline on a flip chart and record the resources in a manner similar to the four previously described quadrants. This appeared to positively affect the confidence and motivation with which the worker approached the job functions. The supervisor in turn became more confident and supportive of the workers autonomous functioning.

When the model is applied to student supervision, certain ad- justments must be made. It is unlikely that a student in his or her first internship would compare to the wealth of experience that a seasoned supervisor might have. Many students are surprised to discover that the model highlights important life experience and skills that they had not initially recognized. It helps to organize their learning and affirm


their acquired knowledge. Mostly, it sets the stage for supervisors to take full adult responsibility for their learning and development.

Summary

The training, education and socialization of child care practitioners has advanced to a point where other professions' contributions to theory can be utilized. Both psychology and social work have been historically influenced by apprenticeship and growth models of supervision and are currently considering the role systems approach. Child care, in turn, has been affected by both these professions in the ways in which it has viewed the supervisory relationship.

If the child care profession is to take full advantage of the growing educational preparation of its practitioners, it must consider a role systems approach to supervision. The Johari Window as adapted to the supervisory relationship is one such innovative approach. The model effectively facilitates mutual growth and development for both supervisor and supervisee.

The child care profession must be cautious to avoid recreating some of the problems experienced by other developing professions and em- brace methods of supervision that are characteristic of its dynamic and growth oriented nature.

References

Brubacher, J. S. (19621. The evolution of professional education. In B. H. Nelson (Ed.), Education for the Professions. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

Doherty, G. (1976}. The use of sociogram data in staff supervision. Child Care Quar ~ terly, 5, 19-26.

Eisikovits, Z, & Guttmann, E. {1983). Toward a practice theory of learning through experience in social work supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 1, 51-63.

Etzioni, A. (1969}. The semi-professions and their organizations. New York: The Free Press.

Fant, R. S., & Ross, A. L. (1979}. Supervision of child care staff. Child Welfare, 58, 627- 641.

Fleming, J., & Benedek, T. {1966). Psychoanalytic supervision. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Greenwood, R. {1974}. Attributes of a profession. In T. Weinberger {Ed.), Perspectives on Social Welfare (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Klein, A. S. {1975}. The professional child care worker: A guide to skills, knowledge and techniques. New York: Association Press.

Knowles, M.S. (1975). Selfdirected learning. New York: Association Press. Kurtz, P. D. {1976). A systematic supervisory procedure for child care training. Child

Care Quarterly, 5, 9-18. Luft, J. (1970}. Group processes. Palo Alto: Mayfield.


Mandell, B. {1973}. The equality revolution and supervision. Journal of Education for Social Work, 9(1} 43-54.

Parsons, T, {1951). The social system. New York: The Free Press. Rosenblatt, A., & Mayer, J. {1975}. Objectionable supervisory styles: Students' views.

Social Work, 20{3}, 148-199. Sarbin, T. (1954}. Role theory. In O. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook ofsocialpsychology (Vol.

1). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Taft, J. (1950}. A conception of the growth process underlying social casework practice.

Social Casework, 31, 311-318. Tarachow, S. {1963). An introduction to psychotherapy. New York: International

Universities Press. Wijnberg, M., & Schwartz, M. (1977). Models of student supervision: The apprentice,

growth, and role systems models. Journal of Education for Social Work, 13(3), 107- 113.

Wolberg, L. {1977}. Technique of psychotherapy (3rd ed.). New York: Grune & Stratton.

Documents

A supervisory model for child care