INTERVISION
(= peer supervision)
1. Introduction
1.1 Aim
1.2 Procedure
1.3 Hints for the proper functioning of an intervision group
2. Methods of conversation
2.1 10-step-method
2.2 The consultative team method
2.3 The 7-A method
INTERVISION
1.
Introduction
Intervision is a way of working, an aid to further develop one’s own professionalism with the help of
colleagues. These colleagues may be on equal terms concerning their expertise, or may have equal
interests in the success of the intervision.
Intervision is a relatively new working method. The sources of intervision are:
-
supervision. Intervision can be seen as a variation of supervision in which the dependence of
the supervisee with respect to supervisor falls away;
-
Japanese management. In Japan, so called ‘circles of quality’ have been developed, in which
job related problems are systematically discussed;
-
checking through colleagues. Especially in health services, several forms of consultation
between colleagues have been developed, in some situations this is also intended to check each
other's qualities.
Intervision has developed into a form of consultation between colleagues taking place with a certain
frequency during a specific period of time, and in a group with a fixed composition. This group tries to
come up with solutions in an autonomous and experience oriented learning process. The group members
take turns as ‘problem introducer’ and ‘adviser’.
1.1
Aim
At the centre of intervision is the reflection on one’s own job, aiming at:
-
a better handling of issues springing from the job;
-
tracking down of other work methods and experimenting with them;
-
getting the job related points of departure and assumptions clear;
-
stimulating a change of the ineffective work behaviour that is present.
2
By thinking about and reflecting on one’s own work related questions with the help of others, it is
possible to gain clear insights that lead up to a change of one’s own behaviour. After all, attitudes,
thoughts, ways of thinking, prejudices and blind spots become visible because of this.
In this respect, it is of crucial importance that the problem introducer themself makes conscious choices
with respect to their work behaviour.
The introducer themself remains responsible and determines the objectives that they consider desirable
and feasible.
3
1.2
Procedure
Intervision occurs in groups of 4 to 6 people. One person is the problem introducer, the other people are
advisers. Concerning the monitoring of the process, it is desirable that one of the participants or an
outside person fills the chairmanship. Experience shows that a meeting usually lasts 2 to 3 hours.
There are several methods of intervision. The basic structure of all methods is as follows:
-
a draft of a problem;
-
orientation on and analysis of the problem situation;
-
characterization of the approach;
-
supplying points of improvement, advice and/or solutions.
In the beginning of an intervision group, it is recommended that different methods are tried out.
Subsequently, the group should look for the way that best suits the development course of the group at
that specific moment.
Points of departure in intervsion are:
-
recognition of one’s own and each others’ expertise;
-
recognition of situations and problems;
-
mutual trust.
To guarantee this, it is desirable that intervision groups are composed on a voluntary basis.
4
1.3
Hints for the proper functioning of an intervision group
-
Explain clearly to each other what you expect of this group and to which 'level of depth' you
want to go. The group develops over time, so discuss this again as time goes by.
-
Beforehand, agree on the person that will introduce an issue. The introducer prepares
him/herself, preferably in writing.
-
The clear and compact description of a definition of a problem or issue is an exercise in itself.
It is important to describe the relevant context briefly and to gear this to the listener (what does
that person need to know to be able to visualize the situation?), and to clearly indicate what the
question is.
-
The minimum conditions for a good conversation are:

The problem introducer needs to have an issue that really concerns
them; something they really want to deal with.

The advisers must give undivided attention to the problem introducer.
Judging, standardizing and pedantic remarks are not productive. They
rather make for defensive, explanatory and 'yes, but...' behaviour,
instead of openness to new inspiration, ideas and the desire to
experiment with new behaviour.
-
During the conversion, frequently check whether the procedure should be changed or improved.
-
Wind up at a certain moment. Setting a time limit is a practical aid for this.
-
Check whether the contributions are useful for the introducer, do not force solutions, the basic
principle should be that the introducer is free to decide whether or not they will use the advice.
A conversation often requires time to settle in.
-
Evaluate and develop the methods of working of the group.
2.
Methods of conversation
Below, a number of conversational methods are described in further detail. These are:
-
10-step-method;
5
-
the consultative team method;
-
the 7-A method;
2.1
10-step-method
Step 1 Problem holder outlines his situation
Problem holder gives brief information on the practical situation in which their problem occurs.
They stop just before the moment at which the ‘problem’ emerges. So, they do not mention the dilemma
they are facing. The other group members should not react to this in any other way than by giving their
intense attention. Otherwise there is a great possibility that the group keeps talking around the problem
introducer themselves. It's true that this can be nice for the problem holder, since they know everything
about the situation and this way, they can shut painful matters out. Nice as well for the advisers, who
often take a professional interest in the environment that is outlined. This way, the goal of this form of
consultation is nevertheless not achieved.
Step 2 Advisers formulate questions
Advisers try to visualize the situation of the introducer of the case. They each separately formulate 3
questions. The trick is to ask good questions, not make suggestions, nor ask too much about details.
It concerns questions that may somewhat clarify the relation between the problem holder and the issue
that they are working on. Taking turns, the advisers write down these questions on a flip-chart. The case
introducer does not respond. This procedure takes some self-discipline.
The aim of this is to do justice to the questions and to enable the problem holder to quietly think things
over. This is where reflection already begins for them.
Step 3 Characterization of the questions by the problem holder
6
The problem holder now characterizes the questions one by one as: ‘hot’, ‘neutral’ or 'cold'. 'Hot'
menas: the question has something to do with my 'problem'; 'cold': nothing to do with it, an irrelevant
question‘ ‘neutral’: even though it’s relevant, I am not sure if it has anything to do with my ‘problem’.
The problem holder can take their time on this characterization.
Again, this is not about solving a riddle, but about reflection: what could have played a role in that
situation? With respect to some questions, the problem holder will ask themselves: why did I not face
that question myself?
Step 4 The problem holder answers the questions
One by one, the problem holder now answers the questions; as briefly (and to the point) as possible.
The answers will not be discussed.
Step 5 A next round of questions
Everybody can ask questions until they are finished. The problem holder answers immediately
(NB: the required discipline can again be practiced here (see 2)).
Step 6 Everyone (except for the problem holder) writes down for themselves
"My problem is....”. While doing so, they try to put themselves in the position of the problem holder.
The advisors preferably formulate the problem at a level that the problem holder probably has not
reached yet. At this point, the most creative step of the entire process is often taken. Everyone's
interpretation is again written on the flip-chart.
Step 7 The problem holder again scores hot/neutral/cold
In this case this is also done to let the essence of everything offered to him come across.
Step 8 The problem holder themself now formulates on the flip-chart
7
"My problem is....". Some debate may come out of this that, provided it turns out well, automatically
leads into a discussion about:
Step 9 Which forces (especially within the person!) cause the problem to persist?
NB: The problem holder decides whether ‘it’s enough now!’ Only if they fully endorse the results of
step 9, can step 10 possibly be taken.
Step 10 What to do now?
This can best be done in a ‘counselling’ way. In the case of suggestions (that can be made here, even
though that is no longer counselling) it concerns: “what difficulties does the problem holder feel that the
execution of the suggestions will cause?”
8
2.2 The consultative team method
This method makes use of ‘consultative teams’. The intervision group appoints:
-
the panel chairman;
-
the problem holder;
-
the consultative teams (maximum of 3 people).
Step 1 The problem holder outlines his situation
The problem holder outlines the situation and the issue that they feel confronted with. Next, they
indicate how they want to solve the problem. They can do this in writing or orally.
The panel chairman determines a natural moment at which the problem holder has to finish their outline
of the situation (repetition of arguments, time, consultative teams become restless).
The consultative teams listen; they are not supposed to ask questions. Obviously, they can write down
questions in preparation for step 2.
Step 2 The consultative teams ask questions
The advisers from the consultative teams ask questions to the problem holder aimed at clarifying the
situation and arguments, why does the problem holder opt for this solution?
The purpose is to get the motives of the problem holder clear. The intention is not to comment on the
phrasing of the question or on the direction of problem-solving of the problem holder.
The problem holder answers the questions immediately.
The panel chairman keeps an eye on the ‘conversational climate’. The problem holder may not be
forced into a defensive position; the advisors may not pass judgements or make comments yet.
9
Step 3 The consultative teams formulate the cause of the problem and problem definition
The two consultative teams confer briefly, for 10 minutes at the most, on the situation, the phrasing of
the question and the direction of problem-solving. This conversation should lead to conclusions about
their view on:
1.
the cause of the problem;
2.
the definition of the problem.
Sub 1. While looking at the cause of the problem, one can focus on the situational cause as well as on
the role the problem holder plays in the arising of the problem.
Sub 2. When doing this, the phrasing of the question that the problem holder adopted can be
formulated once again, or the consultative team can formulate a definition of the problem
entirely of their own. The aim is to formulate a definition of the problem which provides the
problem holder with more insight into their situation.
It is expressly not the intention that the consultative teams already formulate solutions at this point.
The problem holder and panel chairman do 'not have a part' in this stage.
Step 4 Consultative teams present the cause of the problem and their definition of the problem
The two consultative teams give their view on the cause of the problem, and their definition of the
problem. The problem holder asks questions in order to get a clear overview of the information
provided. They are not supposed to comment on this information.
The panel chairman monitors the conversational climate and intervenes if the conversation should move
into non-effective discussions.
10
Step 5 Problem holder gives reaction
The problem holder briefly gives a reaction to the causes and definitions of the problem provided. They
are mainly supposed to indicate how the information came across to them and what they have ‘gained’
from it.
Step 6 The consultative teams formulate directions for solutions
The consultative teams confer for a maximum of 10 minutes about the possible directions for solutions
that they would choose if they were in the same situation as the problem holder.
Step 7 The consultative teams present directions for solutions
The two consultative teams present their directions for solutions. The advice consists of form and
content. Choose a careful proposal for interventions in which both aspects get a chance.
The panel chairman monitors the conversational climate.
Step 8 Discuss solutions
On completion of the intervision, talks on the solutions supplied will follow, in which the problem
holder indicates which direction for a solution appeals most to them. If the problem holder is ‘not yet
ready’ for this, it can be agreed that they will report on what they have done with the advice during the
next meeting.
11
2.3 The 7-A method
This method analyses the situation of the problem introducer by means of 7 Action points:
Reason > Analysis> Sting > Players > Acceptance >
Approach > Action responsibility
Start
The problem introducer outlines the situation that they want to present to the advisers.
Subsequently, the advisers examine the 7 A s. In this respect, the following rules of the game are
important:
-
The advisers are allowed to ask questions to the problem introducer during the entire course.
-
The problem introducer is not allowed to participate in the discussion.
-
The problem introducer can, however, ask questions when invited, but also uninvited.
-
The problem introducer can only comment or judge something if the advisers ask them to.
-
The panel chairman monitors these arrangements.
The following points are systematically examined while analysing the problem:
1.
Reason: the advisors commonly determine the main reason for the situations.
2.
Analysis: based on the information, the advisers individually give a brief analysis based on
their view on the situation.
3.
Sting: every adviser names the sting of the issue. This is the core problem of the situation, the
way the adviser sees it.
12
4.
Players: then it is analysed as to who in the organisation has most to do with the situation, and
which parts the players adopt in this situation (stimulating, impeding, power oriented, power of
decision, etc.)
5.
Acceptance: it is established as to which key players the problem holder must approach to
obtain acceptance of their problem, or to solve the problem.
6.
Approach: then, every adviser states their opinion on the approach that they would employ.
7.
Action responsibility: finally, the advisers state the actions that the problem introducer may
employ to come to a solution of the issue.
13