Why have supervision in Social Work?

Social workers operate within the guidelines of a code of ethics - at least this is what is expected by people who hire them and who rely on their services.

For the most part this is true.

Alas, it is also true that social workers who are eligible for membership of the Australian Association of Social Workers and who are hired by various employers, but are not members of the Association, are not bound by that code of ethics and are not able to be held accountable for their actions under that code of ethics unless they actually become a member of the Association.

In other words the Association cannot deal with people who are not part of their membership.

This has been a sore point for many people who are supervisors across many organisations that employ social workers.

All that supervisors really have available to them to manage the behaviour and practice of their social workers are the normal industrial relations codes that exist and any rules that are put in place within the place of employment the breach of which can lead to action being taken against the employee for such a breach.

Should the professional practice of all social workers be governed by adherence to the guidelines that are enshrined in the code of ethics? I believe so.

So what can be done?

Over the next few weeks I would welcome views from others, but will spend some time and effort to put some suggestions forward about what can be done both from within organisations that employ social workers and also from the perspective of government.

I say government because I am of the view that since most social workers are employed by government it has a special responsibility to ensure that the quality of the service provided by their staff is at the highest possible level.

I would also like to discuss the responsibility of individual workers who do not get professional supervision within the agency that employs them to seek and obtain such supervision for their practice in order to safeguard their clients and at the same time to ensure that their own competence is assessed and enhanced.

"Hell is other people"

Management-Issues: at the heart of the changing workplace
27 Mar 2006
"Red tape and long hours can grind down the best of employees, but it is the people we work with who who irritate us the most."

Pete's Points

Ain't it the truth!

It's not that people are not nice. It's not that they do not want to work with you. It's not that they have 'issues'.

It's just that they are SO damned ambitious!

The fast track to the top seems to be the goal of millions who do not want to take their time reaching for the heights. They want to get there at all costs and NOW not later!

So when they are nice - be careful, they WANT something and usually it will be at your expense.

When they want to work with you - be careful they are prepared to USE you and your knowledge and your expertise to get ahead and when they do they will ensure that that tread you into the ground because they do not want anyone around who will remember how they got to the top. So much for the what goes around comes around!

They NEVER have issues - they will make sure YOU do! So regardless of what sensible suggestions you may make they will always take the credit for it (or try to) and will always market just one thing - themselves!

So if I sound like a 'grumpy old man' what should I do?

Follow the example of all grumpy old men - go and ask for a large Flat White coffee and sulk!

Supervision of Professionally Qualified Staff

Being employed as a professional when employed by some arm of the Public Service can involve a clash of organisational and professional values.

For some people, especially those who do not have to supervise others, the professional values are paramount and any clashes are usually manifested as suspicions or resentment of the 'bureaucracy' with some claims that the client is the main arbiter of professional activity and not the organisation that employs the worker. Some others go so far as to hold professional guidelines and standards as 'more authoritative' than organisational rules.

For some people, especially those who have supervisory functions the clash is more obvious. Their very status and authority as a supervisor is conferred by the organisation that in turn requires appropriate commitment and behaviour from them. For some people the conflict between organisational requirements and professional standards can become a dilemma and in some cases lead to what may be termed an 'identity crisis' for a professional officer supervising others. This 'crisis' can be further aggravated if the expectations from the organisation or its perceptions of 'supervision' are not clarified and where necessary differentiated from any specific professional connotations that the word holds, for example in counseling.

The first step of assisting professional staff is to help them to understand, grapple with and eventually be able to articulate the differences between "professional supervision" and more generic "staff supervision". A second and more difficult process then needs to take place which is to assist them to take their ability to understand and articulate their understanding of the differences and apply them to their practice.

Day to day staff management issues such as planning, delegating, resolving conflict take place within the staff management or supervision process. However they can also take place within the professional supervisory process.

For example, when a staff member demonstrates unwillingness to undertake certain tasks by 'classifying' them as sub-professional, non-professional, or even anti-professional, the supervisor has to have a very clear understanding him or herself about why such tasks are required of everyone within an organisation and why professionals are not exempt.

Monitoring the performance of professional staff also raises some important issues for many staff and supervisors. If, for example, the whole essence of being a qualified professional is considered to lie in the ability to exercise judgment and professional competence then how can feedback be given and received without assailing the subordinate's professional integrity?

Supervision also contains within it the essential element of the person designated as the 'supervisor' having some responsibility to assess and advise the person being supervised about learning and professional development.

Knowing the difference between helping the staff member learn the skills that are required to work within the laws governing the bureaucracy of an organisation and expanding the skills required by their professional roles is another area of potential conflict for both the supervisor and the supervisee. Having to tell someone that they are not as skilled as they believe they are and that they need further training or experience, is a situation that can threaten an individual's perception of self, rather than be seen as a helpful comment to assist that staff member to learn and grow and develop.

Supervisors are on tricky ground with generic staff management issues in this realm and when it extends to professional areas of the work, the risk increases dramatically, especially if there is a difference of opinion between the supervisor and the supervisee about the extent of the supervisor's skills and experience.

I would like to start a multilog (as distinct from a dialogue) with all of the people out there who are employed as social workers, but do not have access to supervision, either professional or administrative nor the time to reflect on their practice in situ at work.

Since I will not be paid for this interaction let the principle of 'caveat emptor' prevail, however I can say that getting professional advice for free, from someone with 20+ years of experience, professionally qualified and a masters degree in social work with a thesis on outcome oriented social work is not to be sneezed at.

I hate getting into a net argument!

Once again thesocialworker has commented.

When my father sees this post, he's going to kill me.

# posted by thesocialworker : 11:25 AM

But why would someone with a high level of education, large inheritance and desire to achieve either want to be or have to work as a baker like you seem to think they should.

The way I interpret it, you're basically saying "if you don't start from rock bottom you're undeserving".

# posted by thesocialworker : 11:44 AM

I am not suggesting that anyone has to be a baker.

What I am suggesting is that anyone who is receiving the dole and has the opportunity to obtain work should get on with it and stop sponging on society!

Just because your PARENTS are wealthy should not mean that you should not have to start and earn your way in life. It certainly does not mean you should sponge off other people as if they owe you a living.

Just so we do not misunderstand one another.

I AM advocating that everyone SHOULD start from the bottom! It is the only way to learn your job properly. I don't give a rat's whiskers how impressive your degrees, or your claims to intelligence simply starting at the bottom means that you learn the job from the ground up and actually appreciate the hard work that is done by colleagues who will NOT be able to move from the starting position.

Unless you understand each of the layers in the business you become arrogant and potentially lacking in any insight into how others feel and how hard their jobs are. If you reach this state of being then you end up being one of those people in the world who frankly do not deserve anything!

I am not suggesting that people should stay at the bottom. If they work hard and they make a contribution then they should be rewarded for their efforts. Let me emphasise what I just said "for their efforts" not the efforts of others.

I am afraid I am one of those who believe that NO one is owed a living and that no one deserves either a free ride or a free lunch.

I am really hostile to people who think that because their parents or relatives worked hard they can live the life of luxury and contribute nothing to society besides their own selfishness!

the socialworker
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

the socialworker
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

undeserving
under serving
under-serving
undeceiving
underselling
Edit...
Revert to "underserving"

the socialworker
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

I am glad I am older

Recently, a reader called "thesocialworker' posted the following comment to my Blog:

Thanks to the intergenerational transmission of wealth, a lot of the time our lives are handed down to us on a silver platter. Hell I'm going to inherit at least 3 houses. And I'm certainly not going to have a shitty life full of 'hard work' (my friends and I have a running joke about the 'honest days work' nonsense; we take the piss in other words) because someone's who's had to 'slog it out' their whole life thinks I should follow in their footsteps. Looks like you older folks shouldn't have worked so hard.

Pete's Points:

If you are the parent or relative of this young person perhaps you should think carefully about what you do with your money and possessions.

Talk about "Great Expectations"

If I were one of his parents I would rather leave my stuff to a charity and then enjoy looking either down or up (depending on where I go eventually) and have a belly laugh as he stands in a queue waiting for a hand out.

Then I would say "cop that you lazy sod!"

Are you happy with your Personell Department

Seen in Management Issues

Senior executives across the world have given their HR departments an emphatic thumbs-down, rating them the worst-performing of all their business functions.

The Economist Intelligence Unit's annual CEO Briefing survey quizzed 555 senior executives, including 226 CEOs, about their priorities and challenges over the next few years.

Asked to rate the performance of various areas of their business, survey respondents slammed their HR functions, with more assessing its performance bad than good.

"No other function-not even the notoriously unlovable IT department-came close to being this unappreciated," the report said.

Almost a third rated HR a 4 or 5 (where 5 is poor), compared with 22 per cent for IT, 20 per cent for knowledge management/research and 20 per cent for marketing/sales.

Pete's Points:

For those of us who work in 'notoriously unlovable' IT departments this comes as a breath of fresh air and a weclome relief. Finally someone is considered more unfavourably than we are

I wonder when they are going to do some research on areas of the work place that undertake procurement and internal audits.

They may be surprised at what they find!