Becoming a social work supervisor:
A significant role transition
Carolyn Cousins
The move from social work practitioner to supervisor can cause a crisis in
identity for some social workers, a point at which professional values, roles and
commitment are questioned and re-analysed. Yet it is an area in which there
appears to be little written to assist the worker to normalise their fears and
anxieties, or to assist with making the process smoother for both supervisor and
supervisee. Drawing on practice experience in a range of health and community
service settings, the present study will examine some of the feelings, issues,
challenges and dilemmas faced by new social work supervisors. It will also explore
the preparation of supervisors, the use of power in the supervisory relationship and
the need for training. It will then discuss tips and conditions for improving the
supervisory relationship.
Keywords
management, power, supervision.
Introduction
Becoming a social work supervisor can
be a difficult transition, for which the social
worker has rarely been officially trained or
adequately prepared. Often, the workers’
own supervision experiences have given
them little to draw on and it can be a lonely
and somewhat isolating role in which the
supervisor, at times, is forced to question
their motives and commitment to their
Carolyn is currently the manager of the Violence, Abuse
and Neglect Service with Central Coast Health. Carolyn
has a Bachelor of Social Work, Graduate Diploma in
Adult Education and Training and Diploma in Frontline
Management and is currently undertaking Masters
in Social Work through Monash University.
Email: ccousins@doh.health.nsw.gov.au
professional ideals and values. Social work
is a profession that significantly focuses on
the use and misuse of power and, for many
social workers, becoming a supervisor can
leave questions (or sometimes accusations
from others) that they have sold out and
become part of the oppressive hierarchy.
They find themselves wondering if they
really are achieving change from within or
whether they have compromised their
values. Being a supervisor is a complex
task and there is often little assistance or
preparation. However, discussions around
this tend to be between trusted colleagues
and are not necessarily discussed openly.
So what is supervision?
As Lewis (1998; p. 31) emphasises, for
those seeking to further their understanding
of the nature of supervision, it is perhaps
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
175
surprising to find that there is still some
confusion about what constitutes the act of
supervision. A rather simplistic explanation
of supervision regularly espoused by
supervisees, is that a supervisor is
someone with ‘super-vision’. This definition
can strike fear into the heart of the best of
supervisors as it implies that a supervisor
has amazing powers of wisdom, foresight
and understanding.
The most well known and most quoted
social work definition of the role of the
supervisor is that of Kadushin (1976; p. 21):
‘. . . a social work supervisor is an agency
administrative staff member to whom
authority is delegated to direct, coordinate,
enhance and evaluate on-the-job
performance of the supervisees for
whose work he is held accountable. In
implementing this responsibility the
supervisor performs administrative,
educational and supportive functions in
the interaction with the supervisee in the
context of a positive relationship. The
supervisor’s ultimate objective is to deliver
to agency clients the best possible service,
both quantitatively and qualitatively, in
accordance with agency policies and
procedures.
Kadushin sees supervision as an ongoing
process, with a range of functions.
However, both the idea of supervision as
an ongoing process and the definitions of
functions outlined above are not universally
accepted. Within the social work literature,
Lewis (1987; p. 19) quotes a number
of practitioners (e.g. Wax 1963 and
Mandell 1973, cited in Lewis 1987) who
advocate time-limited supervision,
appealing for autonomy, equality and
a reduction in the need for ongoing
176
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
supervision. Yet, on even a basic level, all
workers, in any field, benefit from feeling
that their job is worthwhile enough for their
boss to take time to understand their role.
Supervision is one way for this sense of
worth in the role to be communicated by
an agency and the individual manager.
The type of supervision being advocated
by Kadushin is primarily supportive and
educative. Some other definitions would
see supervision as more closely tied with
performance appraisal (Horwarth &
Morrison 1993). It will be argued that
the best type of supervisory relationship is
one in which the supervisee can admit to
not knowing what to do, or that they have
made mistakes and this confession is
judged as a positive. It is this authors’
belief that a supervisory relationship is
at its best when this is expected and the
goal is to identify and work through areas
of weakness for growth, rather than there
being any need to pretend. This type of
relationship is the ideal, however, this
requires a level of trust and honesty that
is not easy to achieve.
The use of power
So, how is such a relationship created?
Shulman (1982; p. 85) outlines some
factors involved in developing trust. These
include providing a supportive atmosphere,
permitting mistakes, encouraging open
expression of concerns, supporting workers
in discussing taboo subjects, sharing your
own (supervisors) thoughts and feelings
and encouraging workers to deal openly
with themes of authority (e.g. letting you
know when they are upset with you). Yet
supervisors should be aware that their staff
will need to take time to see if the actions
and reactions of their supervisor match
the rhetoric. Many of us will, in the past,
have had experiences where it feels
supervisors have betrayed us or used
things we shared against us, so testing out
by the supervisee needs to be expected.
This is why, though it is helpful to discuss
past supervision experiences early in the
relationship, it is also important to revisit
them later, once trust has been more
firmly established to revisit the effects of
those past supervision experiences on the
current situation. The level of trust and
confidentiality will be seen over time in the
extent to which workers feel free to reveal
problems, share their mistakes and use the
experience of both their supervisors and
their peers.
Some social work staff will be very
resistant to supervision and have some
good reasons. Past negative experiences
can greatly colour the way someone views
supervision and whether or not they feel
it is a helpful process. The reality is
that any supervisory relationship where
the supervisor has line management
responsibility is a relationship of unequal
power. The issue of whether the supervisee
can trust the supervisor and how they will
use their authority is crucial to a successful
relationship. Given the past negative
experiences many social workers may have
had, this trust takes some time to develop.
For those of us who like to think we
have developed a collegial relationship
with staff, Kahn (1979; p. 521) makes
some interesting observations, noting that
old fears of inadequacy and criticism, as
well as resistance to learning come into
play in all supervisory relationships. She
cites research that while supervisors
often see themselves as having relaxed,
collegial attitudes, they were often seen by
supervisees as admired teachers, but also
as feared and powerful judges. We are
kidding ourselves if we pretend that power
differences either do not matter or have
been overcome. Most people learn
in childhood that there are certain risks
involved in being honest with people in
authority – especially when negative
feedback is possible (Shulman 1982;
p. 34). Yet there are some good examples
of supervisory relationship (McCrossin &
West 1999) in which the supervisor had
managed to strike a balance between
responsibilities, support and inspiration.
In this exploration of a supervisor
relationship (co written in an example of
true cooperation) the qualities of a good
supervisor are identified as curiosity,
respect, enthusiasm and hope for the
work (McCrossin & West 1999; p. 151),
yet the supervisee still identifies that this is
someone who expects performance and
demands high standards.
While we may work to create a
supportive environment, the reality is
that it is also the job of the supervisor
to raise performance issues. Shulman
(1982; p. 293) states that most social
work supervisors dislike the evaluation
process, but most workers actually want
more feedback on their work, though they
may be somewhat uncertain and fearful of
the outcomes. Open and honest feedback,
with the chance for improvement, can be
beneficial. As Kadushin (1976) points out,
the uncomfortableness is often ours, as
evaluation calls to attention the status
difference between supervisor and worker
and provides a sharp reminder that we are
not peers. The reality is the supervisor does
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
177
have power and no matter how much of a
democratic style the supervisor takes,
they make the final decisions and have a
greater say to upper management. Trying to
devolve this power, or pretend it is not there
is a denial of the truth and indicates a
supervisor who has not yet come to terms
with their new role, a phenomenon the
author has witnessed lasting for many
years. Social work training generally
discourages use of power and hierarchy,
and a social worker finding themselves in
possession of supervisory power over
others can struggle to integrate this with
past knowledge and theory. A good
supervisor is aware of the power they
hold, when they use it, how and why. They
do not try to pretend it is not there, but
rather take responsibility for its use.
Preparation for the
supervisory role
If we were to ask what preparation the
majority of new supervisors get for the
change in roles from worker to supervisor,
the answer, generally, would appear to be
very little. Supervisors have their own
supervision experiences, good and bad,
to draw from, however, as van der Veen
(2002; p. 24) states, most social workers
have had mediocre to adequate supervision
over the years and may have provided
such supervision as well. New supervisors
are often promoted because they have
relevant work experience and may have
some additional (usually clinical) training.
However, being clinically competent
does not automatically make someone a
competent supervisor. Someone may
be promoted on the basis of their
178
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
demonstrated competence in clinical work
or promoted because they were not
satisfactory in the field. Donovan and
Jackson (1991; p. 318) add that neither
of these make them suitable managers,
that such managers not only cause harm
in their managerial role, but often also
inappropriately retain a case load for
security reasons. The author has at times
observed this phenomenon and the
difficulties entailed in assisting a social
worker to acknowledge that they either
need to relinquish some clinical work or
return to a clinical role. This highlights the
need for more research and literature
to assist social workers and those that
supervise them to recognise the different
skills required to manage and lead a team.
Yet some of the skills utilised in a clinical
role are very similar to those required in a
supervisory role. In general, to be a good
field worker in the human services, the
worker must have good communication
and people skills, skills highly useful if the
worker moves into a supervisory role.
Shulman (1982; p. 14) says supervisors
must develop their ‘communications and
relationship skills . . . the very qualities of
work which initially attracted the supervisor
to work with people can be rediscovered
in the ongoing relationships with staff.’
Durrant (2001), in his survey of what
workers want in a supervisor, also identifies
listening skills, flexibility and the ability to
empathise. He states that the ability to
convey respect for both the person and
the developing professional and the ability
make supervision a ‘human experience’
was crucial. This generally is appealing to
supervisors as the satisfaction derived from
direct practice, such as positive feedback
from clients or the excitement of observing
growth and change while feeling a part
of the process, can be realised in the
supervisory relationship.
However, some of the other skills and
values held in this profession can make
the role more challenging. Open and
transparent practice is still a value the
manager can hold the majority of the time,
but there are some issues that for the sake
of the team or agency, are better not
discussed. This is an area in which the
supervisor’s ability to define the situation,
through their position of power, is obvious.
As Durrant (2001; p. 4) acknowledges,
the supervision relationship involves some
kind of hierarchical relationship. This is an
area that can create internal conflict for the
social work supervisor. In social work, staff
can have a high level of expectation that
they will participate in management
decisions and call the manager to account
for their use of power. This is positive
and can keep the supervisor honest and
accountable. However, it can also be
disconcerting to the new supervisor as
they try to work out when a more
democratic approach is required and
when to display leadership.
Donovan and Jackson (1991; p. 308)
would argue that organisational practice
by managers is not politically neutral,
but functional for the existing social and
political structures which are inherently
alienating and elitist. This is not easily
dismissed. Stanley and Goddard (2002;
p. 185) suggest one way of avoiding
supervision being a managerial tool, is to
also use a supervisor or consultant other
than the worker’s line manager. This can
overcome the dilemma of supervisors
primarily acting as control agents. It can
also possibly allow a more open and
trusting relationship. However, they state
that the question of accountability to the
manager needs to be addressed through
clear communication lines between the
consultant and line manager. It is also
important that this is not used as a way to
avoid confronting a lack of performance by
the line manager.
Traps for new supervisors
Hawthorn (1975; p. 179) agrees that many
supervisors, especially new ones, have
difficulty adjusting to their new authority.
Her article focuses on games supervisors
play, related principally to problems
concerning their definition and use of
authority, but are actually types of
avoidance.
Horwarth and Morrison (1993) state that
all interactions have two components: the
content – that is the overt surface action, or
what is being said – and the process – the
covert, unspoken, hidden agenda, based in
undeclared feelings and beliefs. This is true
in a supervisory relationship. Hawthorn
splits the games supervisors play into two
areas: games of abdication and games of
power.
In games of abdication, the supervisor
can project responsibility elsewhere (‘I can’t
do anything’ or ‘they won’t let me’). This
technique allows the supervisor to preserve
their image by expressing a willingness to
take action, but then avoids the risk by
surrendering their authority to higher
powers (Hawthorn 1975, p. 179). Another
version of this is where the supervisor
states they are too busy with administrative
requirements for other supervisory tasks.
This results in a role reversal, where the
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
179
worker is asked to sympathise with the
supervisor and not make demands of them.
This maintains their positive image, while
avoiding their supervisory responsibilities.
Hawthorn (1975; p. 180) makes the point
that games of abdication deny the safety
and security that the authority of the
supervisor can provide.
In games of power, the supervisor sees
their authority as unable to be challenged
and generates helplessness or submission
on the part of their supervisees. This is a
role of absolute power and practices cannot
be questioned, this can be blatant or more
subtle, for example, ‘we have always done
things this way . . .’. There can also be
possessiveness in the language ‘my
workers’ and ‘my unit’. A more patronising
and less overt version of this is the wise
parent, ‘I’m only telling you this for your
own good’. Here the supervisor uses their
status, seniority and past experience to
keep things the same. This game places
the supervisor in the role of wise and
guiding parent and the supervisee as
helpless and dependant (and they should
be appreciative!). This can lead to a
message that the supervisee can never
be expected to be as wise or competent
as the supervisor and the lowered
expectations are clear – thus the supervisor
safeguards their own role and need to be
indispensable. Hawthorn (1975; p. 82)
makes the point that each of these games
can have some legitimate base, but they
become games when they continue without
resolution (for more on games see
Kadushin 1968).
Blair and Peake (1995) quote Hess’
three stages in the development of
supervisors. Hess proposed that the first
or beginning phase involves the transition
180
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
from supervision receiver to provider. This
usually sees the supervisor focus on the
concrete tasks of supervision, this stage
also includes role shock, anxiety and often
a crisis in competence. In the second
stage, the supervisor begins to recognise
and explore his or her impact on the
supervisee and begins to modify their
supervision on this basis. They have also
begun to recognise some of their strengths
as a supervisor and inadequacies. The third
stage is where the supervisor begins to
expose themselves to the literature on
supervision and is characterised by a
degree of excitement about supervision
and the experience of the supervisory
relationship, viewing it as an important
part of their professional identity. Blair and
Peake (1995; p. 125) emphasise the need
for training around this and cite research
that shows supervisors do not necessarily
become more competent merely by gaining
experience in providing supervision.
Durrant (2001; p. 4) points out the need
for a supervisor to be able to identify
and choose from a variety of supervision
techniques and interventions. He states
these choices should be made based
on their assessment of a supervisee’s
learning needs, learning style and
personal characteristics. This requires
some particular skill development on the
part of the social work supervisor that
may differ from their previous training and
experience.
Holding onto key values
Donovan and Jackson (1991, p. 314) state
that the primary goal of a human service
organisation is the welfare of the service
recipient and that this also constitutes the
primary goal of individual workers in
the organisation. So does this apply to
managers also? Can they keep hold of
this vision? Can they remain loyal to the
clients while also implementing the policies
and practices of the hierarchy? This can
depend on the values and political agendas
of those in higher management. It will also
depend on the ability of ground workers
and their direct managers to implement
policies in a way that best serves the client,
where possible, and be prepared to take on
higher management with logical and well
researched arguments where this is not
possible.
These are very real challenges,
especially where changes or policies may
be best for the organisation, but not for
either clients or workers. Questions of
whose side to choose and whether they
have ‘sold out’ arise for supervisors. Many
who take on a management role do so to
see if change from within the organisation
can occur and some are successful.
However, most supervisors will also find
themselves at various times questioning
if their choice was either naïve or self
serving, as change is often slow and it can
sometimes feel as if career advancement is
offered in return for value compromises.
majority of organisations make the
assumption that the supervisor is fulfilling
their job and the needs of those below them
without having any real way or process for
checking.
There is a push for managers of social
services to obtain generic management
qualifications and given the tasks they are
sometimes asked to perform (balancing
budgets, human resources tasks), there
may be some benefits to this. However,
there is the need for more specialised
training to the human service industry
context. Brown and Jackson (1986, p. 9)
state that the values of social work
(identified here as respect for the individual,
the individual’s potential for growth, self
determination and acceptance) are actively
opposed to the generalised approach
underlying most human services
management.
Hawkins and Shoet (1993; p. 80) state
that training must focus on how to build
a relationship with a wide range of
supervisees that is built on trust, openness
and a sense of mutual exploration. They
also claim that the first skill that is needed is
to be able to give good feedback – clear,
consistent, regular feedback that is specific
and balances the positives and negatives.
Durrant (2001: p. 5) emphasises the need
to affirm what a supervisee does that is
right, building them up for their successes.
Training
Clarke (1991; p. 8) notes there is a virtual
absence of formal training courses to
anticipate the significant role transition from
practitioner to manager/supervisor. There is
also, he notes, an absence of monitoring
the quality of the supervision arrangements
by senior management. Essentially, the
What are some tips from the
literature?
Start as you intend to continue
To get off to a good start, a pre-supervision
meeting can be useful, to go over
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
181
professional expectations, therapeutic
orientation, supervision models and
experience. This allows an examination of
the needs and expectations from both
sides, confidentiality and its limits, allows
negotiation on frequency of meetings, any
preparation required, agency context, any
agency expectations and specific policies.
It is also important, as a new supervisor to
acknowledge to staff that this is a new
role, that you will make mistakes and you
will open to hearing about them. It is
considered ethical to disclose if you
are a student to clinical practice, why
does this not apply to supervision? Be
clear about what you do and do not know.
This is providing a good role model. Also
discuss with supervisees how you will
provide alternatives for your areas of
weakness or what you are doing to
overcome them.
With new staff, a new graduate with all
the theoretical knowledge, may appear
confident, but is often worried about the
gap between their theoretical knowledge
and actual practice (Norman 1987; p. 376).
Finding ways to acknowledge what they
do know and being willing to hear their
opinions with the idea that they do not
have to know it all are important. Unless
supervisors work hard at it, they can forget
about how they had to construct, bit by bit,
their understanding of complex ideas and
systems. That information cannot simply
be handed over in one meeting. Even with
experienced workers, there will be anxiety
at the beginning. In fact, they may be more
anxious than new workers, concerned their
skills won’t match the new context and
concerned about what may be expected
of them because of their experience.
This fear is sometimes referred to in
182
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
management literature as the ‘impostor
syndrome’ (see Bold 1996) – the sense
we will be found out as not knowing
everything we think we need to know – it
is crucial to acknowledge that we all go
through this at times. An experienced
worker may also feel more reluctant to ask
for help or reveal their ignorance because
they feel they are supposed to understand
already. They need to be assured that they
are not expected to act like they have been
in the service for years, but we also know
they have a lot to offer and may be able to
provide the supervisor with input advice
over time.
Remember – you do not need to
know everything
As Durrant (2001; p. 4) puts it ‘You don’t
have to be a guru’. It is important for
supervisors, especially new ones, to be
kind to themselves and remember that
even the most skilled supervisor cannot
be ‘perfect’. Supervisors miss signals,
overreact, are not supportive enough,
fail to represent staff feelings to
administration, etc. It is important for
the supervisor to be able to admit
when they make a mistake and to
apologise. It is important for staff to
learn from role modelling that neither
they nor their supervisor get it right all
of the time, nor know what to do, all
of the time. As Durrant (2001; p. 4)
points out it is also important for the
supervisor to not always know what is
best for the situation, but to model
seeking advice.
It is important for supervisors to be
aware of their own triggers, fears and
concerns so as to resist becoming
defensive. Any supervisee may be
concerned that their supervisor will not
understand their issues, concerns and
fears. Donavan and Jackson (1991; p .342)
state a human services manager needs to
be able to depersonalise resistance and
occasional hostility and be able to resist the
urge to treat organisational relationships as
therapeutic ones. Donovan and Jackson
(1991; p. 342) suggest that ‘to be a good
manager, they need to be secure and
without the need to be universally loved’.
This may sound easy, but it can be quite
difficult for a supervisor to realise they
are no longer one of the gang and that
people sometimes regard them with
cynicism or mistrust. A supervisor will
have to make tough decisions sometimes
and the power difference is there, this
means there will be times when they
will not be popular. However, the goal
should be to be transparent and to own
their decisions.
Is supervision for you?
Supervision is a skill that requires
development and honing. As Durrant
(2001; p. 6) points out good supervisors
really enjoy supervision. They are
committed to helping workers grow
and this commitment is evidenced in
their preparation for and involvement
in the sessions. Supervision involves
high levels of conceptual functioning
and Durrant (2001; p. 4) states that
supervisors need to be honest with
themselves about their strengths and
limitations as a supervisor and be able
to identify how their personal traits
and interpersonal style may affect the
conduct of supervision.
A supervisor’s own support needs
It is ironic that some supervisors spend time
honing their own skills and give the role of
supervision within their service great
importance and yet so many do not
appear to have supervision themselves.
Stanley and Goddard (2002; p. 187)
stress that supervisors require assistance
in addressing the moral and ethical
dilemmas they will face. They also need
opportunities to discuss their own triggers
and the effect on the various supervisory
relationships of such things as ages,
gender, discipline, ethnicity and level of
positions. Durrant (2001; p. 4) states that a
good supervisor seeks ongoing growth in
their role as a supervisor through continuing
education, self evaluation, feedback from
others and their own reflective supervisory
relationship. Given the need supervisors
will have to reflect on organisational
politics, it can often be quite useful for
their supervision to be provided outside the
agency. The issue of who supervises the
supervisors, as previously mentioned,
seems to be poorly researched.
Conclusion
The supervisory relationship is complex
and multifaceted. It is a relationship of
unequal power, in which the supervisor
can be a source of support and growth
for the worker, or can induce fear and
dependence. An individual supervisor
will not get every aspect right, all of the
time. Some aspects of supervision will
come more naturally and some staff will be
easier to work with than others. In order
to ensure their own ongoing professional
development and to examine the ethical
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
183
and practice dilemmas of supervision, it is
crucial that those in a supervisory role
receive their own support, particularly if
their own capacity for empathy is not to
be blunted. The position of supervisor is
powerful, in that it has a large impact on
the work practice and working lives of staff
and in turn the agencies’ provision of
services to clients.
More investigation and research is
required by the profession to assist social
workers who may be thinking about making
this transition. There is a gap in the
research around identifying the skills and
support structures that make up a good
social work supervisor, while there is also a
greater need for exploration of the types of
professional development options and
training social work supervisors feel would
allow them to openly explore the inherent
difficulties and tensions in the role. This
would then allow for recommendations to
social work employers. There are different
degrees to which supervision is legitimised
and supported by each agency context and
some agencies recognise the need of a
supervisor to have supervision themselves.
However, there is still a long way to go in
creating a culture that allows supervisors to
raise their fears and inadequacies and
open their own supervisory practice to
scrutiny.
Despite all the unanswered questions,
there are real rewards to the supervisory
role. Reynolds (in Hawthorn 1975; p. 183)
sums it up well:
‘Once a supervisor has given up trying
to answer all questions, and knows that
his skill consists in drawing others out,
clarifying responsibilities, contributing what
is known from theory and experience, his
position is no longer terrifying but rather
184
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
exhilarating. A leader, no less than those
who are led, is sustained by the sharing of
responsibility, not only with those who may
be above him but just as truly with those
whom he works.
References
BLAIR K & PEAKE T (1995), Stages of Supervisor
Development. The Clinical Supervisor, 13 (2), 122–132.
BOLD M (1996), When Workers Feel Stupid. Oryx
Press, Phoenix, AZ.
BROWN T & JACKSON A (1986), Education for
Management in the Human Services. Paper presented
at AASWE Biennial Conference, Brisbane, July,
pp. 1–13.
CLARKE M (1991), Supervision and Consultation
in Social Work. A Manageable Responsibility?
Australian Social Work 44 (1), 3–11.
DONOVAN F & JACKSON A (1991), Human resource
(personnel) management. Managing Human
Service Organisations. Prentice Hall, New York,
pp. 305–345.
HAWKINS P & SHOET R (1993), Supervision in the
Helping Professions. Open University Press,
Philadelphia, pp. 48–92.
HAWTHORN C (1975), Games Supervisees Play.
Social Work, 32, 179–183.
HORWARTH J & MORRISON T (1993), Unblocking
the Learning Cycle. Staff Supervision in Social
Care: an Action Learning Approach. Longman,
London.
KADUSHIN A (1968), Games People Play in
Supervision. Social Work, 13, 23–32.
KADUSHIN A (1976), Supervision in Social Work
Practice. University Press, New York.
KAHN E (1979), The Parallel Process in Social
Work Treatment and Supervision. Social Casework:
the Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 60,
520–528.
LEWIS S (1987), The Role of Self Awareness in
Social Work Supervision. Australian Social Work,
40 (2), 19–23.
LEWIS S (1998), Education and organisational contexts
of professional supervision in the 1990s. Australian
Social Work, 51 (3), 31–39.
MCCROSSIN J & WEST R (1999), A Working
Relationship. In: Fitzgerald R & Henderson A (eds),
Partners. Harper Collins, Sydney.
NORMAN J (1987), Supervision: The Affective Process.
Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social
Work, 92, 374–379.
STREEPY J (1981), Direct-Service Providers
and Burnout. Social Casework: the Journal of
Contemporary Social Work, 69, 352–361.
SHULMAN L (1982), Skills of Supervision and Staff
Management. Peacock Publications, Chicago, IL.
STANLEY J & GODDARD C (2002), In The Firing Line:
Violence and Power in Child Protection Work. Wiley,
West Sussex.
Article accepted for publication August 2003.
Australian Social Work/June 2004, Vol. 57, No. 2
185