|
SUPERVISION
Selecting the correct frame for
supervision
Ernie Hilton
Choosing how to interpret the unique
circumstances of any supervision can significantly impact the
experience whether you are the supervisor or the supervisee. From a
supervisory perspective, choosing the accurate context during an
interaction of (or in?) supervision can be reckless or precise,
depending upon how a supervisor chooses to frame the experience. In
the book, Reframing Organizations, the authors, Bolman and
Deal (2003) suggest leaders conceptualize organizations within four
frames of reference; structural, human resource,
political and symbolic. Although broad in scope these
frames undeniably exist within organizations and teams. Accepting
the existence of these four contexts allows the supervisor a greater
opportunity for precision in understanding the circumstances
surrounding the supervision process. I find these frames effective
tools for thinking about supervision and will share my observations
here.
Structural Frame in Supervision
Often described as the “factory” or
“machine” this element of any organization needs to exist for
effective operations (Bolman & Deal, p.400). It is within this frame
we, as employees, are given and learn policies, rules, roles,
guidelines for practice and performance, and how decisions are made;
ultimately the architecture of the organization. Within this frame
there tends to be an endless supply of content available for
supervision. One only has to google on the CYC-NET alone to find
endless information on the structure of (or for?) supervision.
It is essential for supervisors to do their
homework in the structural frame. A supervisor who tries to feign
their way through best practice models, frameworks and other needed
competent areas because they rely on their “positional power” versus
their “expert power” usually will not generate the team cohesion and
aptitude needed for a strong organization or team (Austin p.21-22).
However boring and mundane it may be, there can be no corners cut in
supervision when it comes to providing the structure necessary when
(in?) developing core competencies. Embracing a structural frame in
supervision requires leadership to have written clarity in areas of
job performance defined by structures like; organizational themes,
codes of conduct, policies and procedures, operational and
communication plans, detailed models of treatment practice, case
management models and organizational charts, to name a few.
Increasing autonomy in employees through supervision requires that
safety be present by having comprehensive clarity regarding the
structure of operations in addition to the supervisor being
deliberately availability for the process of supervision and
evaluation (Rivas, 1998, p.269).
Human Resource Frame in Supervision
The human resource frame usually generates
the most controversy for supervisors in supervision. This frame
provokes the concept of an organization being “…like an extended family complete with needs,
feelings, prejudices, skills, and limitations” (Bolman & Deal,
p.14). It is within this frame where the structurally dependent
supervisor and the human resource biased supervisor often collide. A
structural frame focuses on enforcement of rules, policies and
guidelines necessary for predictable operations; whereas the human
resource frame predominately attends to needs of people over policy
and contracts thus the collision of styles when these two frames are
in competing positions or not balanced in operations. The human
resource frame insists compassion, support and empowerment are
tenants when interpreting the supervision process and its content.
The supervisor operating from this frame is usually either
interpreted as a “catalyst or a wimp” (p.354). Effective supervision
rooted in this frame tends to focus more on productivity through
people embracing the old adage of “putting people first”.
Supervision tends to reflect an advocacy for coaching, mutuality,
participation, facilitation and empowerment.
Effective human resource leaders will create a
context in supervision that employees are respected, worthwhile and
essentially the greatest reason why an organization is successful. A
supervisor who embraces supporting employee needs and encourages
these needs to have a place in supervision constitutes the existence
of the human resource frame and its relevance as an integral part of
the success of an organization.
Political Frame in Supervision
Welcome to the “jungle” or what Bolman and Deal
call the political frame of an organization (p.433). Politics and
politicians are inherently viewed as untrustworthy, deceitful and
generally people and processes that hustle hidden agendas. The
process of supervision has limitations and political supervisors are
able to be realists within this process. A predominately human
resource leader would feel compelled to put the needs of an
individual over the organization's limitations that could possibly
put in jeopardy resources for others. A political leader, however,
will recognize the reality of the situation and its limitations and
will negotiate an agreement within supervision without offending, or
creating illusions or false promises. Political supervisors are
aware of the limitations of their power and the often-present scarce
resources available. In supervision the political goal is to balance
these scarce resources against “divergent interests” of individuals
in relation to the needs of the masses (p.197).
Utilizing the political frame in supervision can
act as a vehicle for unification of individuals and teams with the
greater vision and goals of an organization. Politically speaking in
supervision there is less of a focus on resolving conflict
and more of focus on designing strategy and tactics for
accomplishing goals. A supervisor who is not politically astute and
misreads the context of the supervision can do damage and not only
impact a specific relationship but indirectly do damage to the idea
and vision surrounding the role of supervision for that
organization. The political supervisor embraces conflict and
challenge as something that can stimulate interest and curiosity
rather than something seen as debilitating and harsh. The idea of
bargaining and negotiating occurs regularly in front line practice
with youth and families. Bargaining or negotiating with a youth in a
residential care facility tends to be framed in a more palatable
context such as a strategy in an intervention plan to create a
therapeutic change verses a political intervention tactically
designed to impact the youth. So why should it be different in the
context of supervision?
Symbolic Frame in Supervision
The metaphor associated with this frame is
characterized by the idea that organizations are like "theatres” (Bolman
& Deal, p.15). Often an overlooked frame, the need for symbolism in
supervision is an essential theme to nurture. Creating the culture
of supervision if not intentionally (or carefully?) organized can
take on negative associations. It is through the rituals of
storytelling that legends are passed on to others. To underestimate
the power of the culture of supervision established by the
supervisor is to underestimate the widespread resonating impacts of
being inspirational or deflating to the organization. A supervisor
who embraces the process of supervision as a regular ritual where
experiences and stories are shared and heroic interventions are cast
as mythical examples of treatment is an organization that embraces a
symbolic frame. Supervision can play an inspirational role with
employees if we attach meaning and purpose to what we do as
caregivers in the field of child and youth care beyond ourselves as
individuals and teams. Sometimes feeling connected to the purpose
that is greater than self that can be extremely motivational. The
symbolic context within supervision can be the glue that unites
individuals within a culture of shared beliefs and values promoting
cohesion and opportunities for effective communication because of
these shared beliefs and values. Symbolic language found in posted
organizational tenants or team charters that have been agreed upon
during retreats can guide employees on their journey and create
camaraderie and cohesiveness among teammates. This cohesive culture
offers a greater chance for consistent practice and service
delivery.
Conclusion
The idea of multi-framing supervision allows a
supervisor another method in which to understand how best to be
helpful in building capacity in their organization. The diversity in
thinking which comes from being aware of different themes allows a
supervisor to consider many ways of interpreting problems and
possible solutions. It is important enough to ask front line workers
to exhibit these qualities when considering all of the different
possible meanings and contexts associated to a youth’s troublesome
behavior. Therefore it seems only reasonable and parallel to
practice that we, as supervisors, consider many frames of context
inside the process of supervision.
References
Austin, M. J., (1981) Supervisory Management for the Human
Services Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc.
Bolman, L.G and Deal, T.E., (2003) Reframing Organizations:
Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, 3rd. ed., San Francisco,
CA. Jossey-Bass
Rivas R.F. (1998)., “Dismissing Problem Employees” in R.L
Edwards,., J.A. Yankey and M.A. Altpeter, Skills for Effective
Management of Nonprofit Organizations, Washington, DC: NASW
Press.
|
