THE COMPATIBILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND EDUCATIVE SUPERVISION
by
Adam Calvert
B.S.W., University of Victoria, 1999

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
August 2016
© Adam Calvert, 2016

ii
Abstract
Supervision is not a simple construct. Administrative focused supervision is
necessary for the development of the organization and to keep an organization running
smoothly; the supervisor ensures policies and mandates of the organization are being met.
Educational focused supervision is about the development of the supervisee. Many
supervisors are tasked with dual role supervision in human service organizations. However,
my question is: How compatible are these two functions of supervision and under what
provisions should they be practiced. Some writers have argued that these two roles are not
mutually beneficial when carried out by the same supervisor. While others have maintained
that administrative and educative supervision should be utilized together for the best
outcomes. This thesis explores compatibility of practicing administrative and educative
supervision together, and will intimately look at the logistics for the practical application of
these two functions as a dual role supervisor, through an autoethnographical lens.

iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vi
Glossary ...................................................................................................................... vii
Autoethnography..................................................................................................... vii
Client ...................................................................................................................... viii
Conscientization....................................................................................................... ix
Culture of Silence .................................................................................................... ix
Dialogue .................................................................................................................... x
Praxis....................................................................................................................... xii
Risk ......................................................................................................................... xii
Social Work ........................................................................................................... xiii
Supervisor .............................................................................................................. xiv
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... xx
Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
Chapter Two: My Theoretical Framework and Literature Review .............................. 4
A Supervisor’s Theoretical Perspective on Social Change....................................... 4
Nature of Social Problems ...................................................................................... 17
Conceptualization of Organization as Community ................................................. 18
Community Change Perspective ............................................................................. 20

iv
Intervention Approaches and Specific Practice Skills. ........................................... 24
Supervision ............................................................................................................. 25
Chapter Three: Research Procedures .......................................................................... 50
Quandary ................................................................................................................. 50
Approach ................................................................................................................. 50
Methodology ........................................................................................................... 55
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 61
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 63
Summary ................................................................................................................. 64
Chapter Four: Findings ............................................................................................... 65
The Plan of the Study.............................................................................................. 65
Case Example in Supervision ................................................................................. 94
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................... 99
Administrative and Educative Supervision Should Not Be Practiced Together... 100
Administrative and Educative Supervision Practised in Dual Role...................... 102
Administrative and Educative Supervision Provided Separately ......................... 112
Finding Balance as an Administrator and Clinician ............................................. 115
Chapter Six: Conclusion ........................................................................................... 125
Organizations Responsibility ................................................................................ 126
Protecting Social Work as a Profession ................................................................ 128

v
A Social Workers Responsibility .......................................................................... 129
References ................................................................................................................. 130

vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Years of Service: Over-Time Not Included......................................................... 7
Figure 2. Administrative and Educative Supervision Cross-Comparison ........................ 34
Figure 3. The Cycle Resulting From Administrative Focus ............................................. 91
Figure 4. Components of Supervision Agreement or Contract....................................... 120

vii
Glossary
Arendale (2007) explains “language not only reflects past and current practice, it also
guides the future. As the practice advances and changes, so must the language to describe it”
(p. 10), or the language will become not useful in describing the profession. Though the
terms I use to explain points in the thesis may be known to the profession of social work,
those who are just starting in their studies or are not familiar with the field may need
clarification as to some of the concepts used. As well, there are many definitions to some
terms or words used in this thesis, so to be clear I have either defined these in the glossary or
in the body of the thesis. Arendale (2007) explains, “While those within the profession may
understand the nuances of the language, policy makers and the general public probably do
not” (p. 12).
Autoethnography
Autoethnography “combines cultural analysis and interpretation with narrative
details. It follows the anthropological and social scientific inquiry approach rather than
descriptive or performative storytelling” (Chang, 2008, p. 46). Throughout the thesis the
reader will hear the subjective voice reflecting on past practice and mixing the personal with
previous studies into supervision (Mullaly, 2007). Chang (2008) gives this definition:
“Autoethnography as autobiographies that self-consciously explore the interplay of the
introspective, personally engaged self with cultural descriptions mediated through language,
history, and ethnographic explanation” (p. 46). Ellis, Adams and Bochner (2011) explain
that:
Autoethnography is an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and
systematically analyze personal experience in order to understand cultural experience.

viii
This approach challenges canonical ways of doing research and representing others
and treats research as a political, socially-just and socially-conscious act. A researcher
uses tenets of autobiography and ethnography to do and write autoethnography. Thus,
as a method, autoethnography is both process and product. (p. 273)
Client
There are a number of different clients that I have as a supervisor within a human
service organization. At this time my internal clients are contractors; employees of the
organization that do not directly report to me, that utilize our unit’s services, and my staff
that directly or indirectly report to me. As well, I have external clients who are the general
public of British Columbia (BC). The external clients specifically would have interaction
with my organization. If citizens of BC have interaction with, or are forced to use, the
services the organization I work for provides, then their family members can also become
external clients.
My focus with the internal clients is to be a good administrator, educator and
supporter. As I fulfill these roles, I focus on our work environment to ensure that all parts are
flowing well internally. I focus on working with other supervisors to ensure that all
mandates, policies and procedures are followed. I focus on ensuring that our executive is
well-supported. I also ensure that my staff members have all that they need to function well
in their work environment. As well, in my role as educator, I focus on the individual needs of
each of my employees. By directly meeting with them and clinically supporting them with
direction and reflection, I help them address stressors in the work place. There is a level of
support I give them to help them meet their educational goals and performance targets.

ix
My focus with the external clients is to be a good administrator and educator. I focus
on ensuring my staff are doing a good job interacting with the public and educating the
public, as well as being responsive to the public’s needs. I also write policy and work with
other managers within the organization to ensure all departments are being responsive to the
employer’s and public’s needs (Freire, 2000).
Conscientization
Conscientization is the process outlined by Freire (2000), “of developing a critical
awareness of one’s social reality through reflection and action. Action is fundamental
because it is the process of changing the reality. Paulo Freire says that we all acquire social
myths which have a dominant tendency, and so learning is a critical process which depends
upon uncovering real problems and actual needs” (para. 1). According to Freire,
consciousness is determined by the socio-economic, political context, and also by cultural
conditioning through ones upbringing, education, and religion. In other words, it is an interchange between economic and cultural structures. Freire uses an example of the Sandinistas
ensuring everyone had a level of literacy by sending out university students and teachers to
teach the people of Nicaragua. Then the people could participate in a democracy as equal
partners being experts on their lives and able to run their government. This is an example of
how conscientization works to free people from those who oppress them; through teaching
and raising the level of consciousness then the people changing their reality (Freire, 2000).
Culture of Silence
Freire (2000) explains that “the oppressed people become ignorant and they become
dependent on the culture of the oppressors, the so-called ‘experts’, specialists in society”.
There are myths [emphasis added] that are accepted as reality as one gives up one’s own

x
beliefs. It is sometimes through the sheer amount of information from the oppressor, or the
restriction of the oppressor’s values and stories, that myths of oppression are followed or
believed. These myths can be everything from one believing that they are not good enough to
pursue a goal because the oppressor has embedded the oppressor’s truth and values in all
information given. The residential schools were very much a tool of an oppressor crushing
the value of the oppressed out of them and then trying to replace truths of language, culture,
family, and many other parts of life with oppressor’s myths (Absolon & Willett, 2005;
Armstrong, 1994; Freire, 2000).
Dialogue
Dialogue has many different meanings; the context I use for this thesis reveals the
relationship between a supervisor and staff members:
The relationship between group leader and group members is horizontal. The roles of
leader and group member are interchangeable, and the leader learns from group
members as well as group members from the leader. They relate to each other as
subjects as opposed to the authoritarian method of learning where the relationship of
group leader to member is clearly vertical. With the problem posing / solving method,
leader and group member are in dialogue with each other: it is an encounter on an
equal basis. The main goal of the encounter is to discover reality together, to unmesh
the false myths with which we have all been brought up. This joint enquiry by means
of dialogue into the experience of our lives is also an exchange of information
between group leader and group members, teacher and students. (Fritze, 2006, p. 6)
Dialogue is treating others as equals in sharing and as experts within the community. The
expectation is clear that the group leader will learn as much as those participating. As well, in

xi
a community change perspective, the leader only brings forward the issues and then the
group members create the dialogue and find answers to the proposed issues. The group leader
participates in consciousness moving, from little understanding of a social problem and focus
on the individual, to looking at causes and global impacts or reasons for social issues. The
Nicaraguan example demonstrates these parts of dialogue (Freire, 2000). The Sandinista
leaders were able to introduce and use dialogue in a revolutionary way. The people of
Nicaragua (being the group) were able to define their social problem; discuss and move from
treating people as objects to treating them as human beings. They were then able to move to
Praxis - transforming their thoughts and ideas to freedom from a dictatorship by instilling
democratic values and principles into the fabric of the nation (Freire, 2000).
Another example of dialogue is an Elders Advisory Council set up by different First
Nations in the South Eastern area of British Columbia. This council gave guidance and
direction to supervisors and staff in a child welfare agency that worked with the First Nations
in the area. All were able to learn and have dialogue about issues facing both the nations and
the agency. These included social issues faced by an individual, family, all of the way
through to looking at more global impacts on the nations and reasons for social issues
(Calvert, 20042704 [personal journal]). There was a form of conscientization using dialogue
throughout the agency that moved through the nation, and resulted in the sharing of cultural
power with understanding of issues in much deeper and meaningful ways. This could not be
achieved if there was not the learning by the workers and supervisors from the elders on the
council.

xii
Praxis
In community change practice perspective, praxis is the action word to the actual
change initiative; the movement from knowing the issues and how they impact the
community, through to the doing something about it (Freire, 2000). Freire also connects this
idea of praxis to freedom – the idea that as praxis is carried out people and communities
become free from being objects. Praxis moves one beyond the oppression and the ties that
bind one to a social problem. This is the person or people protesting; the letter writer, the
person standing up with thousands of others saying, I will not take it anymore [emphasis
added]. Praxis has millions of faces, and it is the action on the knowledge one has gained
through dialogue (Freire, 2000).
Risk
Risk is inherent in the research, as one studies interactions between client and state
within the context of child welfare in British Columbia, one encounters differing levels and
understanding of risk (Henwood, Pidgeon, Sarre, Simmons, & Smith, N, 2008, p. 433). In
the lives of many families, harming a child and having that child removed has multiple risks
attached to multiple issues a family may face. Risk assessments are completed by child
welfare professionals, considering what factors may place children at risk of being harmed.
Administrative supervision helps the social worker and social worker supervisor decide
whether to return a child to familial care or to continue with state care. Educative supervision
helps the child welfare social workers be better professionals and make better choices
administratively. However, internal clients that will be involved may “live their lives with no
reference to risk at all” and not associate child welfare as a risk topic. Child welfare

xiii
professionals may associate their employment and their lives with differing risk situations as
risk permeates their lives in and out of the ‘office’ (Henwood et al., 2008, p. 435).
Differing approaches are needed to approach and address risk in each situation. First,
the internal client may need to define their life risks in regards to child welfare involvement
as their “social context” is not mine (Henwood et al., 2008, p. 434). As well, I will need to
ensure that I receive educative or clinical supervision by a manager to help me make better
choices. I keep in understanding that the child welfare professional may have a differing
view of risk outside of the arena of employment as “people networks can play an important
role on the social construction of risk perceptions” and even where the interviews are held
may skew the perceptions of risk (Henwood et, 2008, p. 434). As well, I will need to ensure
that my understanding of risk does not directly impact the exploration of risk with service
users and service providers in the child welfare forum; though I am sure that subconsciously
it will help form dialogue (Freire, 2000).
Social Work
There are many definitions describing social work and the intentions of the
professionals practicing it. I chose the description below as I found it rang true for me. I
would also point out to the reader that this definition should be used to understand two
contextual pieces of this thesis: (1) Social workers work with those who are not inside the
profession, and most definitions are written in the of way explaining social work as working
with others outside of the profession; (2) This definition can also be interpreted as to social
work being done within the profession; strengthening and improving skills, efficacy and
outcomes of individual social workers, as well as the social work community at large.
Furthermore, I believe that some of the greatest work done is within the profession to

xiv
strengthen each other. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) states that social
work:
Is the professional activity of helping individuals, groups, or communities enhance or
restore their capacity for social functioning and creating societal conditions favorable
to this goal. Social work practice consists of the professional application of social
work values, principles and techniques to one or more of the following ends: helping
people obtain tangible services; providing counseling and psychotherapy with
individuals, families, and groups; helping communities or groups provide or improve
social and health services; and participating in relevant legislative processes. The
practice of social work requires knowledge of human development and behaviour; of
social, economic, and cultural institutions; and of the interaction of all these factors.
(Barker, 2003, p. 408)
Thus, as a supervisor providing supervision of social worker’s, it is important to bring to bear
the knowledge of the above factors to optimize the supervision experience for the supervisor
and supervisee.
Supervisor
This leads us to the discussion of who is a supervisor. A supervisor for the purpose of
this thesis can be defined as anyone who is a social worker practicing supervision (Kadushin,
1992, Tsui, 2005). All capacities and levels being covered: from front line social work
supervision to managers supervising those front line supervisors; to directors or executive
providing supervision to managers. As long as one is implementing the knowledge and skill
set of social work supervision, one is practicing as a supervisor (Brashears, 1995; Bruce &
Austin, 2000; Kadushin, 1992; Noble & Irwin, 2009; Tsui, 2005; Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006).

xv
Team Leader MCFD job profile.
Below is a job profile of an Integrated Team Leader for MCFD, a position in which I
practiced my supervision skills for six years. The title of the immediate supervisor is:
Community Services Manager with a classification of Business Leadership with the Ministry
of Children and Family Development of British Columbia. The following description was
taken from British Columbia’s Representative for Children and Youth (RCY) (2015):
Purpose of unit:
The family and child team leader is directly accountable for the quality of service to
clients accessing their team and for setting and monitoring standards on
interdisciplinary practice.
Purpose of job:
The family and child team leader reports to the community services manager. This
position has authority, accountability and responsibility to plan, develop, manage,
coordinate and evaluate the delivery of integrated initiatives and services within the
context of an interdisciplinary service team. The team leader has broad
responsibilities to work with diverse community partners with respect to the delivery
of a range of services within each district, and is pivotal in establishing and
implementing the multidisciplinary approach in service delivery. This position will
provide direction, leadership and support to staff within these teams, including youth
justice program for professional and integrated services delivery, and must ensure
adequate clinical support is provided as well as a broad range of staff training and
development. The team leader must take direct responsibility for ensuring case
management practices are current and meet required service levels and standards. The

xvi
position is also responsible for managing all contracts in the district, as designated by
the community services manager.
Job duties and tasks:
1. Directs and monitors the integration and delivery of all ministry services within an
assigned district by:


providing leadership which will create a well-motivated interdisciplinary team
capable of providing and developing high standards of performance;



ensuring the delivery of ministry services is coordinated, comprehensive and
in keeping with regional goals of a multidisciplinary approach;



planning, implementing and managing the delivery of a multidisciplinary team
approach to ministry programs and services in accordance with legislation and
regulations, regional and central agency directives and ministry policy;



establishing and/or implementing systems to monitor, review and evaluate
standards of practice and effectiveness, efficiency and economy of programs
and services within the context of the service delivery team;



preparing, allocating and controlling budgets assigned to the team level to
ensure the most effective use of resources, and negotiates and/or approves
case specific contracts; Appendices



providing and ensuring the complaint process is followed when clients are in
disagreement with ministry decisions; and



having formal accountability for a local budget spending authority.

2. Supervises, trains and recruits staff by:

xvii


relaying interpretations and instructions to team members on the intent of
policy, ministry mandate, philosophy, Acts, regulations and procedures;



identifying training needs to ensure team members acquire the knowledge,
skills and abilities necessary to work effectively within the multidisciplinary
delivery teams;



directing/coordinating the provision of a comprehensive and interdisciplinary
case management process;



establishing and communicating performance expectations to team members
and evaluating these expectations annually or as indicated by performance;



modeling expected behaviors and attitudes; and



will sit in on counselling sessions with clients either by:
o carrying a caseload on high risk cases;
o sitting with and assisting subordinate Social Workers on difficult
cases.

3. Oversees the operation of the Team by:


assisting/directing the supervision of administrative support to the Team; and



coordinating administrative details among all service employer groups, e.g.
leave management, backfill support, hours of operation, work schedules, etc.

4. Participates in area and regional planning and management by:


interfacing with other personnel to ensure integration and coordination of
overall services to clients;



identifying trends, needs and issues, developing plans or recommendations for
initiative to address them, and in conjunction with any and all Advisory

xviii
Committees, monitors and evaluates the effectiveness, appropriateness and
adequacy of programs and policies at the local level;


preparing, presenting and defending budgetary needs, and makes
recommendations to the Community Services Manager or the Associate
Community Services Manager in the development of long-range goals for the
region,



attending and contributing to area and regional planning and management
committees;



providing input or recommending changes to existing or proposed programs,
policies, procedures and systems.

5. Promotes public awareness and involvement in ministry service delivery by:


assisting in the establishment of a community advisory/consultative process to
provide meaningful input into the evaluation, development and conduct of
ministry services by members of the community both individual and
institutional;



liaises with other provincial, federal and municipal agencies, and special
interest groups in local area;



conducting public speaking engagements to enhance the profile of the
ministry within the community;



establishing relationships with community partners, provincial, federal and
nongovernmental agencies to enhance the delivery of services to children and
families seeking service through their respective ministry of Children and
Families Development office;

xix


assisting the community to build on its inherent strengths to better service the
needs of its members.

6. Other related duties: In smaller offices, the Team Leader may be required to:


assume responsibility for and perform casework



do on-call after hours work

7. Performs other duties as designated by the Manager. (pp. 50-52)
As one reviews the job description, one finds a heavy emphasis on administrative supervision
with little weight placed on clinical/educative supervision.

xx
Acknowledgements
I appreciate all those who have influenced me and guided me along the path I took to
complete my Master of Social Work Degree.
I first acknowledge my loving wife and companion who supported me every step of
the way. She has loved and cared for me and encouraged me in my pursuit of this degree. She
has always stood beside me on this journey. To her I owe so much more than I can ever
repay.
Next, I give a special thank you to Dr. Si Transken for her encouragement and faith in
my ability to finish this project. She had supported me and pushed me beyond my comfort
zone, she has challenged me to bring forward my best work. She has inspired me to higher
heights. I am thankful for her undying support in this pursuit.
I give thanks to Dave Sangha for being a willing participant in this journey and for his
support in bringing more of me out in my study. He has helped me connect theory with
practice. Thank you to Dr. Verna McDonald for helping me to straighten out my thoughts
and encouraging me to go further with my education and learning. She has inspired me to
keep my passion for this project.
I acknowledge the many great supervisors I have had, and worked with, throughout
my life as a social worker. I want to thank Ellen Winofsky and Kelly Pomeroy for
encouraging me to start down this path towards my Master of Social Work.
Lastly, I want to thank my mother and father, Penny and Leonard Calvert for teaching
me the importance of education, as well as, persistence in pursuing your dreams and goals.

1
Chapter One: Introduction
I am a white, Anglo-Saxon, able-bodied heterosexual man, who has more than 30,000
hours of experience in the field of social work. During this time a main vexation for me has
been that of quality, as well as type of supervision, we give and get in the human services
fields of practice; particularly child welfare (Transken, 20140505 [thesis review]). The
Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) is the largest Child Protection
Services (CPS) organization within British Columbia (BC). There are many individuals and
organizations that critique the supervision MCFD provides to the internal clients, being
frontline social workers, their team leaders, community service managers, and directors
(Belanger, & Stone, 2008; Maler, McSherry, Larkin, Kelly, Robinson, & Schubotz, 2010;
Mills & Simmons, 1999). MCFD is an example of a large, bureaucratic, human service
organization providing social services. Research indicates that the internal clients of human
service organizations receive supervision that is dependent on several factors: the mandate
of the agency, the level of bureaucracy in the organization, the supervisor’s skills, abilities,
and personal style of supervision (Kadushin, 1992; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007; Tsui,
2005). These factors interplay with the compatibility and effectiveness of the administrative
and educational functions of supervision.
Supervision in social work usually refers to the interaction between the frontline
social worker and supervisor providing direct client support, or between frontline supervisor
and manager. However, it may also be extended to the interactions between two persons or
group of persons having a supervisory relationship, where supervision is being provided
(Bogo & McKnight, 2005; Hung, 2010; Iannello, 1992; Kadushin, 1992; Tsui, 2005). Barker
(2003) defines supervision as:

2
An administrative and educational process used to help social workers further
develop and refine their skills, enhance staff morale, and provide quality assurance
for clients. Supervisors often assign cases to the most appropriate social worker
[when supervisors are supervising front line staff], discuss the assessment and
intervention plan, and review the social worker’s ongoing contact with the client.
Educationally, supervision is geared toward helping the social worker better
understand social work philosophy and agency policy, become more self-aware,
know the agency’s and communities resources, establish activity priorities, and refine
knowledge and skills. Less experienced workers tend to be supervised according to a
tutorial method, whereas more experienced workers use more case consultation, peergroup interactions, staff development, or social work teams. Educational supervision
(oriented toward professional concerns and related to specific cases) is distinguished
from administrative supervision (oriented toward agency policy and public
accountability. (p. 424)
In this thesis I also include the supervisory relationships between frontline supervisors and
managers; managers being supervised by directors (all levels of directors) and lastly,
directors being supervised by other executives. I find that this focus on all levels of
supervision in MCFD allows for a better understanding of supervisory culture within the
organization.
Some academics suggest that the two functions are compatible and can be used
together by the same supervisor (Crea, 2010; Greenspan et al. 1994; Rauktis & Koeske,
1994; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007). Others state that the two functions are not always
mutually beneficial and may be better facilitated through a division of tasks to more than one

3
supervisor (Bogo & McKnight, Bruce & Austin, 2000; Erera & Lazar, 1994a, 1994b;
Hasenfeld, 1992; Iannello, 1992; Heugten, 2011; James, 1996; Noble & Irwin, 2009). Using
an autoethnographic lens, I will explore the question of compatibility between the two modes
of supervision.

4
Chapter Two: My Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
Through the exploration of my theoretical frame work, I will reveal my perspective
on supervision, as well as explore the literature regarding social work supervision. I will also
explore research covering both sides of the argument, as to whether administrative and
educative functions of supervision should, or should not be practiced together.
A Supervisor’s Theoretical Perspective on Social Change
Bishop (2005) discussed a cycle of power that all social workers play a part in. In
exploring the connections of structural issues and community, one can better see the contrast
of approaches to community work between macro global work and micro individual practice.
I am very drawn towards better understanding oppression and the effects it has and how it is
perpetuated throughout the global community, as well as, in micro practice. It is very
connected with the structural power a bureaucratic organization attempts to maintain. The
organization uses the supervisor to define how and when work happens. Furthermore, the
cycle of power is very connected with the decisions human service organizations make with
regard to educative supervision; specifically, how and when, or if, this type of supervision
happens.
Why social work fits for me.
These notions of administrative or educative supervision, let alone social work, were
never part of my scholastic learning as a child or youth. I have to say that when I was
growing up I was never introduced to the concept of social work, though social work was
practiced all around me. I am the oldest of six children and was taught at a young age to do
the household chores of: canning, child care, cleaning, cooking, dusting, ironing, laundry,
making beds, sewing, along with anything else that needed to be done. I grew up

5
impoverished and our family was always helped out by grandparents, other family members,
or friends from the communities of whom I was a part. I did not know that I was poor until I
hit the 10th grade of high school. At that point in my life, I started to experience shaming
from peers for the clothing I wore and the inability I had to spend money on frivolous things.
I was angry that I had so little and did not feel it was fair I had so little and others had so
much; nor? did I like to be ridiculed. I did not understand at that time how this type of
ridicule and shaming would shape me towards a life in social work.
My parents participated in different community organizations, such as Parent Teacher
Advisory Committees, and volunteered at the school. Yet the term social worker [emphasis
added] was never introduced while I was growing up. I spent approximately two years living
in the inner city of Boston, Massachusetts (Mattapan and Dorchester) and saw many differing
social issues affect the lives of all who lived in the area. Myself, and others experienced
crime in the form of gang violence, issues with housing, poverty and hosts of other
difficulties. These events also had a deep impact on my psyche and pushed me further
towards social work. However, my first introduction to the concept of social work was riding
on a bus going to my second semester of my first year of university, to become a
psychologist. An associate had just applied for the social work program and was riding on the
bus with me. She told me that she had just applied to the social work program. I asked what
social work was and was given an overview. I immediately fell in love with what I heard, as
it was a combination of my life and a profession that addressed issues I had grown up with,
and had seen when I lived in the inner-city of Boston.
I applied to the program and was successful in starting my life-long pursuit of social
justice through the practice of social work. I took my first courses on social work from

6
University of Victoria at Okanagan University College, which is now University of British
Columbia – Okanagan. I learned about structural social work and feminist practice. I then
dipped into critical social work and feel that I have somehow mixed the two and am
continuing to transform my theoretical practice. I know and believe that structural issues
must be addressed. I also deeply believe that issues are bigger than just structural, and find
myself strongly influenced by work focused on global issues. Zapf (2009) explains that we
should not solely be focused on the social environment, but must also be focused on the
actual physical environment as social workers.
This I believe about social work and supervision.
I believe that each organism is connected and that one’s focus should be on the sociopolitical aspects of community, as well as the physical environments. However, most of the
time I have found myself earning my living by doing more micro and meso1 type practice. As
a supervisor, in a quasi-government organization with all of the hierarchical bureaucracy, I
find that I am fighting against the status quo to be able to practice in an anti-oppressive way.
I have learned administrative and educative supervision is very important to frontline
workers’ success (Tsui, 2005). However, there seems to be little time allowed for focusing on
the educative side of supervision, and no money or time spent on the actual environment
(Erera & Lazar, 1994a; Noble & Irwin, 2009; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007; Tsui,
2005; Zapf, 2009). I have rarely heard any discussion from a supervisor about the importance
of the actual physical environment which one works in (Itzhaky, 2001; Tsui, 2005, Zapf,
2009). Further, my professional organization, work unit and supervisory group are all
1

Refers to working with a group or organization. It fits between micro working with individuals and
small groups and macro practice working on larger systems and governments or even global practice. At times
the meso practice focuses on how the micro and macro are connected.

7
different communities. Though they are different, they are linked through self or other
communal factors. The theories of structural, critical, and environmental social work applies
to the practice of supervisors within human service organizations (Zapf, 2009).
I have worked for more than 30,000 hours in the field of social work, as shown in (Figure 1.).
Over those fifteen years I have mainly worked in the area of child welfare with three years in
another related field. Before child welfare I worked in the social work field as a private
contractor and owner of my own company. However, for the purposes of this thesis I will
focus on my time in the public service.
Figure 1. Years of Service: Over-Time Not Included
1st year

2nd - 4th years

5th-6th years

Family
Guardianship/

Services/Aboriginal

Aboriginal

Adoptions

On Reserve/

Team/Afterhours

Afterhours
1820 Hrs

5460 Hrs

3640 Hrs

6th to 12th

12th to

Total Time

years

15th years

in Hours

Supervision/
Investigations/

Manager

Family Services
10920 Hrs

3640 Hrs

Links between profession and academies of learning.
Within community and with an organization being viewed as a community, there are
certain pieces of experience that should be communicated. Supervisors are the integral link
between practitioners, bodies of social work knowledge, organizations, and external clients
(Kadushin, 1992; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007; Tsui, 2005). The link signifies the
transfer of professional knowledge from the profession to the employee through the

25480 Hrs

8
supervisor, and from academia through the employee to the supervisor. The connection also
signifies the conveying of goals, policy and procedures from the organization to the
employees, again through the supervisor. The connections that employees make with the
external clients are beneficial to the organization, due to the knowledge and understanding of
client issues that an employee can bring to the organization through the supervisor (TromskiKlingshirn & Davis, 2007). Thus, with the supervisor being the gate which information
passes back and forth to the organization, it is important to build a culture of communication
and openness. In many organizations, one will find that social work supervisors run into
difficulties trying to communicate with the organization or their employees (Kadushin, 1992;
Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007) due to the environment not being open to change and
learning.
I remember my first discussion with my first supervisors in child welfare. As a new
employee, I had just finished school and thought I had the newest and most up-to-date
learning and skills to tackle the difficult issues faced by child welfare practitioners. I was told
by my supervisor that I was an “idealist and soon would understand that what I learned in
university did not really apply to the real world practices of child welfare” (Calvert,
20011309 [personal journal]). I started from that moment to question if the supervisor really
knew what they were talking about. I remember thinking: Is my supervisor more
knowledgeable than my professors? I also started to question academia. Why the hell did I
just spend six years in university to learn a bunch of stuff that I would never use? Upon
reflection, I see that my supervisor was using shaming to start the indoctrination process of
the organization. An organization that uses the supervisors to teach the sickness of

9
oppression from within: If I can teach you to not use the most up-to-date learning from actual
research, then I can make you follow without question the doctrine of child welfare.
Over the next 12 years with MCFD, I also found that every supervisor had differing
approaches to supervision. Approaches varied from laissez-faire (not really supervising) to
only practicing administrative supervision; moving to a more didactic form of supervision to
the minimal inclusion of educative/clinical supervision. As well, there were supervisors who
ranged from very authoritarian and prescriptive to ones who were very focused on being
supportive. After four years of social work practice, I had seven different supervisors with
seven very different styles. I found that the styles were not dependent on me as a new social
worker. They were dependent on the experiences and schooling of the individual supervisor,
their core values and beliefs, how busy the office was, and how much time the organization
allowed for supervision (Bogo & McKnight, 2005; Dill & Bogo, 2009; Eagly & JohannesenSchmidt, 2003; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007).
I remember in my fifth year as a social worker going to training that new supervisors
received. There were only two of us that were not practicing supervisors in the class. MCFD
trainers ran the instruction. I found that none of what I was taught was being practiced, or at
least I had not experienced the type of supervision that was being taught. I asked the many
practicing supervisors in the training why this might be, and the answer was overwhelmingly:
We do not have time for such supervision; this is the type of supervision in an ideal world,
but we do not live in an ideal world. When you are a supervisor you will see. I was outraged
that these were their responses and disillusioned by the ministry that would waste peoples’
time. I thought at the time, just like the other academies of learning, sending them to training.
I thought I will never be like these supervisors. I will always speak out and ensure my staff

10
members receive this type of supervision being taught by the instructors; where both
administrative and educative supervision are given enough time.
A culture of silence within large human service organizations.
Freire (2000) identifies cultures of silence [emphasis added] in community – these
same cultures are seen in the public service. Within the child welfare context, there are myths
that are accepted as reality as workers give up their own beliefs about practice. I have seen
this happen to myself and others as supervisors within a large human service organization.
With the sheer amount of information from the organization slowly piling up and pushing out
the scholastic evidence like a garbage truck filling up, garbage bag after bag, until anything
good there might have been in the receptacle is mixed with the organizational garbage. Thus,
taking away the knowledge, skills and voice that new social workers bring from their
academies of learning and telling them that the theories and beliefs instilled in them through
school is not the way to practice (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012; Mullaly, 2007).
With restrictions placed on structural and environmental practice, ideals, stories and
values may be crushed and oppressed through hierarchy, policies and the sheer amount of
work (Bishop, 2005; Collier, 2006; Zapf, 2009). These structural barriers are firmly in place
to protect the culture of the bureaucracy; to protect it from unscheduled or unplanned change
(Bishop, 2005). I believe that one must break down the structures, and to some small degree I
did this through implementing a form of dialogue and community development, as well as
social action with my staff. I believe this is a mixture of two very different frameworks. One
is from Bishop (2005), which is working within the structures and challenging the
organization through the formats that are in place. The second is an approach of using the
power of a group to force change and make it uncomfortable for the establishment to remain

11
in the same oppressive state (Atlee, 2001; Alinsky, 1971). I have also included Freire’s
conscientization approach, educating about how the environment impacts us and how we
practice in it.
Dialogue with employees.
The employees did not know what to do when I came to them with these types of
approaches. I explained that it was for my benefit, and theirs, that we could learn together
about the organization, policies and procedures. As they have become more knowledgeable
and able to act, they have requested changes to their work environments and are able to
navigate through the organizational and democratic processes, such as saying “no” to unsafe
work places they used to go and work in. They are finding that as long as they approach the
organization through the structural processes that are implemented for all to participate in,
they are able to realize the change. This includes education about: biohazards, mold, and
toxins; external and internal client interactions; environmental hazards; equipment and
safety. My observation is that the staff in turn are taking more active roles in the organization
and starting to make democratic demands within the organization. For example, one has
become a new shop steward, while another (who stated they would never get involved with
anything) has joined the occupational health committee; yet another has taken on an informal
leadership role and is leading our group meetings and ensuring we are looking at safety
practices each meeting.
As well, the employees are underpaid, so I have educated them with regards to what
others make for this type of labour. At first, I approached the organization myself,
questioning why staff members are underpaid. My director said, “Yes they are, now make the
case for them to be paid more”. So I showed the director the statistics and found that I was

12
doing things for my staff, and thus not letting them have a voice. I found that my one voice
was not effective and I was doing for [emphasis added] the client, instead of educating and
letting the community activate, through conscientization. So I went back to the community,
my staff, and educated them, found out what the strengths of each were, and found a leader
within their ranks. Now they are in the process of challenging the organization and employer
through the democratic processes installed, but rarely used by the union and employer to
achieve equitable pay.
The employees I manage comment on how their work place is changing for the better.
I know that they are changing it for the better. I have to also work with individual staff with
regards to their personal issues and find myself doing educative supervision – everything
from debt counseling to personal relationship issues. I find myself better able to help them
navigate through their personal issues by using the same kind of approach; not doing for but
using education and discussion. I find that because I have been a part of their community
change, they are more trusting of me as an outsider to their community. The organization that
I work for does not practice structural or environmental social work, and does not look at
addressing the oppressive practices with staff in the way that I have implemented. However,
they do provide latitude to managers with regards to supervision, as long as the work gets
done; though I am not sure that the employer had this type of latitude in mind.
Working for the Public Service of British Columbia, I find that the employer attempts
to address some structural barriers when it is convenient to do so, with little consultation of
the frontline supervisors, and the style is top down (Mullaly, 2007). When the larger society
brings things to the attention of the employer, the employer will address things like ableism,
ethical issues, racism, sexism, and other types of isms. However, there is no consideration to

13
look at the structure of the organization, as to how it is oppressive to the workers and how it
contributes to the structural barriers (Mullaly, 2007). As I approached the organization with
the request to look at the structures, there was a blank stare and then reality of oh, he is
serious [emphasis added]. I discussed the need to incorporate more principles of equity into
wages and work load. I think they will be getting back to me on this one. Until then they are
not sure how to handle such a request except to ignore it.
The question of power.
In reading Atlee’s (1992) writings on power, I found myself able to verbalize what I
really felt about democracy and the influence of power. Part of my theoretical framework is
that I do not fully believe that democracy will win the day, due to so much corporate
globalism that is practiced outside of the democratic safety net. I believe that it is a question
of power. The above ‘democratic processes’ only happen because they are based on the rules
around the use of power that have been stipulated and agreed to. Power has many different
forms and is perceived differently by different people and groups. To me power is the ability
to influence the behaviour of people with or without resistance. Power may be recognized or
not, it may be observable or subversive, internal or external. When I break down the
definition I would use for power, one can see that power comes in many different forms. For
example, if an individual or group want to use power and the individual or group that they
want to use it against, or with, has the same views or ideas as that individual or group
wielding the power, the influence will happen with little resistance (Alinsky, 1971). The
more difference between the individuals or groups, the more resistance will take place. As
well, this influence can happen with little opposition if a group who has not shared the same
views of the influencer(s) accepts a culture of silence that has been perpetuated by myths of

14
the influencer, or user of this subversive power (Freire, 2000). The influencer will also use
quiet subversive power to exert influence.
The group of employees I have worked with did not recognize the power they had
until they were educated and supported to use their power as a group. I would argue that the
very nature of power does not lend itself to being democratic (Atlee, 1992). If one has to use
power versus voice to gain rights, the organization is not being democratic about it. The key
is in the word influence [emphasis added]. One can be kinder and more inclusive; however, it
is still the influence, the attempt at changing or moving of another or group of others, to a
different point. I would argue there is never really a democratic use of power where everyone
is equal and equally shares in the use of power. There may be common themes or reasons
why individuals or groups come together to use power to influence, but this is not democratic
(Alinsky, 1971). It is more of happy tension between those using power to influence, or using
power to not be influenced too much. I believe that there are always a myriad of choices as
how to approach power change through community practice and the choices are best made in
response to particular environments (Alinsky, 1971).
I currently use power to influence the behaviour of my staff. I am a manager and
administrator and I have power that I use to ensure that the agency’s mandate is fulfilled by
my staff. Some of this power, people may argue, is subversive and invisible. At the same
time there is the observable use of power, such as individual meetings with staff members for
clinical and administrative supervision, and education with the team to further the
conscientization type approaches. I try to be a leader and use education to help individuals
see their power, and through using supervision agreements, employees can hold me
accountable in my use of power.

15
I also believe that we each individually have power within. To explain, I turn to
hooks’ (1995) example of how she learned to use her anger and inside power to change the
anger into another form of power and action, transforming one form of power into another,
love. However, some people or groups use their power to control or try to control the power
of others. I find that as I approach community practice, I struggle with how the use of power
is ethical or not ethical in some cases. I find that in discussing my theoretical framework, I
have to include ethical practice.
Sixteen years ago I approached what is now MCFD and discussed with them about
starting an ethics committee. I had been influenced by two professors of philosophy, Dr. Jim
Robinson and Dr. John Pugsley, and felt it was important to have an ethics committee at
MCFD. At first the manger laughed at me and then when I explained how and why the
committee would be beneficial, the manager bought in and took it upwards. There was a
committee struck and started in what was the interior region.
I have been asked why I focused on the starting of an ethics committee instead of
depending on the British Columbia College of Social Workers to monitor ethics within the
child protection agency. My answer is that the Ministry of Children and Family Development
is not solely an organization that employs social workers; it reaches to other professions
within the social sciences to train as child welfare workers. I believed that all child protection
social workers needed a place to take ethical dilemmas. Due to the ethical dilemmas that
social workers and all child protection workers face, there should be a committee that social
workers, supervisors, managers, directors and beyond, could go to for help in the difficult
ethical decisions that needed to be made in such an organization.

16
Five years after the start of the committee, I was no longer involved as I had changed
regions; however, it was presented as a model of practice for child welfare at the World
Forum of Social Work. I remember sitting in the presentation thinking I started this, I was the
spark. I believe one person can make a difference. I believe that when working with
communities and individuals who are oppressed, as practitioners we must ensure that we do
this in an ethical manner.
My ideology.
My political ideology flows out of my belief about power and sometimes conflicts
with my thoughts around ethics. The political ideology I use fits within the realms of my
belief about power and I find myself leaning towards a line between Social Radicalism and
Utopianism. I believe that one will be seen as radical when one tries to change the power
imbalances that are in place. However, I feel that when some form of new balance is reached
there can be a place of utopian sharing of power for the good of all. I think that my youthful
years shaped me to believe that there is a place where people help one another at the micro
level and can make the world a good place. If everyone just helps each other for the
betterment of all, the macro level will take care of itself. As well, I have been influenced
through my latter years to feel that there are those oppressors who do not want this to happen
as they want to be richer or more powerful than all. This leads to the breakdown of
communities, societies and the globe. I believe that as social workers focus on community
practice and include the global community along with the physical environment, we can
achieve good things; though I feel that there will need to be radically new approaches for this
all to happen.

17
I also tend to lean toward a critical theory approach. I feel strongly that women,
minorities, and the impoverished are marginalized in many aspects of society. As I have
stated before, I feel that there is a great difference in pay with regards to occupations that are
normally seen as men’s work [emphasis added], such as engineering, trades, lawyers and
doctors, when compared to what has been traditionally seen as women’s work [emphasis
added], such as social work, teaching, and almost everything else to do with interactions with
children. Though there have been some half-hearted efforts to address this in the recent past
in Canada, there is still a large gap and there are many inequities. I see this as a global issue
where not only women, but those who are of different classes and social strata from the
power elite in different countries around the world are also marginalized, and used by the
rich to get richer. The message globally is you should be happy to be employed because look
at all those that are not. I find that that this is an insidious message: There is not enough, so
just be happy with what you have. I do not believe it and never will. I believe there is enough
if we all share and work together.
Nature of Social Problems
I see social problems being constructed by the power elite or the oppressor to keep
the power holders in power and the elite continue as elite. I also believe that oppression is
used to ensure that there are enough social problems to keep the masses in control. Many
rules, laws, and social constructs are formed to keep a small portion of people in power
oppressing the many. I follow Bishop’s (2005) thoughts that this is done through ownership
of media and the transferring of messages to the masses of what to think and how to think
about all aspects of the world. If one owns the media and is able to message loud and long
enough to the audience and controls all other messages that the audience is hearing, then the

18
audience starts to believe the lies the powerful tell as truths. On the converse, I see social
media, used by the masses, as a powerful ally in helping address root causes and the myths of
social problems.
I believe that each action I take is a step towards or away from social justice. I use the
term justice, rather than equality. I do not believe that life will ever be equal, nor do I believe
that power will ever be equal, though there can be a flattening of justice and use of power by
others, to increase the power of those who have little. I see raising children as one of the most
powerful things that can be done. However, I see that few have the privilege to do so,
unfettered by oppression. If societies valued and honoured reproductive rights through
equitable global distribution of resources and power, and not oppress women because of
reproduction, then many social problems would be resolved. Instead there is the exact
opposite oppressive view held and practiced by communities on a global scale. I would
instead look at addressing the latent and treacherous attack on women that has been
acculturated in successive generations for millennia. Continued campaigns of education,
dialogue, and conscientization on a large scale need to take place to restructure global
society.
Conceptualization of Organization as Community
The concept of community is a very personal thing. I list a number of different
communities I feel that I am a part of; family, professionals, and global communities. I
believe that we are all so very linked – every organism on this planet. We indeed are parts of
smaller communities, such as family, local community and other such connections. I believe
we are also parts of much larger communities, and community members are the ones with the
best answers to the issues they face. As well, being a part of an organization, I see myself as

19
part of a community and try to function in that community from an empowerment
perspective. I understand society to be the product of individuals and individuals to be a
product of society: I do not see it as an: either/or argument. Thus, I would extend this to
supervisors and supervisees, as each are a product of each other. Zapf (2005) points to our
global community as being one large organism and I believe that we are all dependent on
each other. I see community as a global whole, made up of many other communities
intricately woven together by individuals with the same issues, passions, and traits. Thus
those that are being supervised and the supervisor are part of a community. They are
individuals intertwined around a cause or organization. However, what makes up the actual
parts of the person, the biological essence and innate abilities of the individual, are not found
in the society or community, but how that individual is viewed in the community.
What Blum (1994) called virtuous actions of the individual, arguably, are the product
of the community. I would argue that as we progress towards more knowledge and
understanding of the organization or social context we find ourselves in, we will discover a
more perfect answer then we have now of what the needs of the organization or society really
entails. You cannot have a community, and thus an organization, without the individual
components, with each individual component being something unique to itself and bringing
character, understanding and knowledge to the organization. As well, a community gives the
individual meaning, context, and a way of understanding. I believe if we could look at
individuals at their most microscopic levels, even one’s thoughts and desires, we would be
able to understand community at a deeper level. As well, if we could see the community at its
most macro cosmic level we would understand individuals far better. I believe that as we
look at this through an organizational lens, we see the importance of both administrative and

20
educative supervision. Administrative supervision helps the supervisee look at the larger
picture and view their role in context of the larger community. Educative supervision helps
the supervisee and the supervisor look at the micro aspects of the supervisee and both are
able to interact and change at the most micro levels with the input each receives from the
other.
I find myself thinking that whatever I do with regards to individual or community
practice, I must be aware of the interconnectedness of all. As I take this belief and put it into
practice, I find that I treat others with the love that was referred to in the hooks (1995) article.
I want to be a better citizen and interact in my small and large communities in better ways. I
want to find the strengths within the communities and challenge the communities of the
oppressors to find this love for all the organisms in our global community. This may sound
sappy and a little disconnected from reality; however it is an end goal, a very idealistic one,
but an end goal.
Community Change Perspective
I believe that community practice on the micro level must be connected with the
macro level to address the oppression and the powers that hold oppression in place.
Otherwise, it will result in the perpetual cycle of oppression, ever moving through the ages,
never to be addressed. At the same time I believe that it is better to have the ‘expert’ come
from within the community. I believe that most communities need a form of dialogue or
conscientization. For example, it would be beneficial to have social workers and families sit
and dialogue about children or women, or as supervisors, to dialogue about supervision. I
believe that taking MSW courses is a form of dialogue and conscientization, moving the
community of new MSW graduates to have different perspectives about praxis.

21
I think of dialogue and conscientization as ways to approach power holders through
the building up of the community, and then the leaders naturally flow from the community
(Alinsky, 1971; Freire, 2000). These leaders are able to approach micro and sometimes
global issues. With regards to community change conscientization, for me is very closely
linked to seeing community as those who are oppressed and with need to be educated in
literacy. There are different levels of literacy, from learning to read to being a dynamic
global activist, and thus different levels of interaction with citizens (Alinsky, 1971; Bishop,
2005; Freire, 2000). Moreover, the goal is to get people involved in the democratic system
and be a little radical, as needed. Regarding radical practice I would point to using group
power as supervisors to demand changes to structures of organizations; to demand ethical
practice by agencies that they work within. Supervisors and supervisees need to use their
voices and all other means at their disposal within an organization to obtain the needed
educative supervision. The democratic processes are in place within most organizations;
however, most social workers do not use them to make demands.
For me there are times when education of the masses should not be the first focus. I
use the approach of the Sandinistas as an example of what had to happen before
conscientization. They were forced to resist through a strong form of social action, even
revolution including armed conflict, to survive and get to the point where they could use
conscientization. However, once at a point where they were able to practice a different form
of social change, they educated the masses to the point where the masses could be involved
in the government, and make the social changes that were necessary. So part of my
perspective does include social action using conflict to force change and move power from
one to another (Alinsky, 1971). At times there is even place for consensus building. I think

22
that there are probably times that all approaches are needed. As I have stated before, the
Sandinistas are a perfect example of using many approaches; first a militant social action
approach that moved to actual civil war. Once the movement gained power from the
oppressors, a method of conscientization was used to instill a democratic process in the
people, who were sharing power. I am not short-sighted enough to believe it is utopian. Now
a community development approach is used by the Nicaraguan people on a regional and
municipal government level to deal with the issues that are faced by the peoples in those
communities.
During my practice in child welfare, I was part of this kind of change when I was
seconded by Ktunaxa Kinbasket Child and Family Services Society to help the society move
through their transformation from a partially delegated2 agency to a fully delegated agency.
My role was to work with and teach the social work practitioners how to perform delegated
functions, such as investigations into allegations of child abuse, preparing for court
processes, testifying, removing children and other forms of instruction relating to fully
delegated work in child welfare. The Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Child and Family Services Society
started dialogue and conscientization processes before I entered the picture through planning
meeting with the members of the nation:
In 1992, after all five Bands of the Ktunaxa Nation Council decided to conduct preplanning work on the transfer of family support and child protection services mandate
from the then Ministry of Social Services.

2

Delegation refers to an authority to act in child welfare matters in the province of British Columbia.
This power comes from the Child, Family and Community Services Act of 1996 (2016) Part 7, under agreement
with the Minister of the British Columbia Legislature who is responsible for the statute or the director of the
Ministry, functioning under the statute, delegating power to agencies, individuals or organisations.

23
The pre-planning work was completed in July of 1993 and the Planning phase
begun in August of that year with funding through Indian Affairs First Nations Child
and Family Services program. In December of 1996 the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Child and
Family Services Society [KKCFSS] was established with the support of the five
communities. The Family Violence Prevention Program merged with KKCFSS in
1997. In 1999 Negotiations were completed with the Province of British Columbia
Ministry for Children and Families and Indian and Northern Affairs for a “Delegation
Enabling Agreement” which will allow the KKCFSS to phase in the Family Support
and Child Protection Services over a four year period. In 2002, a protocol was entered
into between the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Child and Family Services and the Kootenay
Region Metis Association to provide services to all Aboriginal children and families
on and off reserve. (“Social Sector: KKFS,” 2016)
Moving forward from the protocol I was seconded and at first met with a lot of
resistance from the community due to being from MCFD. I found that as I participated in
learning and dialogue, such as going to language classes to learn Ktunaxa and participating in
cultural events and life on the reserve, I not only learned how to communicate more
effectively with people of the Ktunaxa Nation, I was also able to better understand the
oppression that was experienced by the Ktunaxa. I believe that the learning on both sides was
transformational for my praxis and for the praxis of the nation members who were practicing
child welfare. Those who I trained and worked with who were from the Ktunaxa Nation were
also able to better navigate within the child welfare system and the courts, and come up with
much better solutions for the aboriginal children in the Ktunaxa territory. When I left the
social work practice with KKCFSS, I took with me a richness and better understanding that

24
helped me develop better relationships with different nations I have worked with since my
time with KKCFSS. This was a long process and ended up with me receiving more than I
feel I ever gave.
Intervention Approaches and Specific Practice Skills.
I work with communities that are very vulnerable and those that can become
vulnerable. I believe that I use consultation, consensus-building and decision making to
approach changes to policy and procedures within the community. Using research to ask
questions as to what is not working, and what helps me be a better member of the community
of supervisors and managers in the British Columbia public service is a connection of
research and action that forms my praxis.
The overall research question I pursue is: How can the administrative and educational
functions of supervision coexist as compatible in the Ministry of Children and Family
Development (MCFD). I will pursue answers to four questions that come out of the main
question regarding the compatibility of administrative and educational functions of
supervision in MCFD: (1) What are the expectations of the administrative or educational
functions of supervision that impact the dual roles; (2) what insights can be gained from my
experiences with these dual roles; (3) How am I, and others, experiencing administrative and
educative supervision from different supervisors; and (4) what are some overall conclusions
about the experiences of balancing the dual roles of administrative and/or educative
supervision?

25
Supervision
What is Supervision?
The overall goal of supervision is to support the supervisee in providing effective and
meaningful service to clients (Kadushin, Berger, Gilbert, & Aubin, 2009; Tsui, 2005). To
facilitate this, a supervisor must ensure they are providing both administrative and
educational supervision to employees (Kadushin et al., 2009). In this document I will refer to
anyone who is in a supervisory capacity of a social worker as a supervisor, which includes
Team Leaders, Managers, Directors, and Assistant Deputy Ministers. All supervisors are
taught to be administrative supervisors as part of the structural moray of MCFD.
The main thrust of administrative supervision is to provide social workers with a
context that permits them to do their job effectively (Tsui, 2005). Tsui (2005) explains that
“educational supervision aims to improve the staff’s capacity to do the job effectively, by
helping workers develop professionally and maximizing their practice knowledge and skills”
(p. 15). Supervisors and community services managers for MCFD are challenged to develop
a balance between the two functions for the supervisee’s growth and development.
According to Tsui (2005) there are several principles of supervision that should be included
in the creation of any supervisory model:
1. Supervision is an interpersonal transaction between two or more persons.
2. The work of the supervisee is related to the agency objectives through the
supervisor.
3. In this interpersonal transaction there is a use of authority, an exchange of
information and ideas, and an expression of emotion.
4. Supervision reflects the professional values of social work.

26
5. The supervisor monitors job performance; conveys professional values,
knowledge, and skills; and provides emotional support to the supervisee.
6. The criteria for evaluating supervisory effectiveness include staff satisfaction with
supervision, job accomplishment, and client outcomes.
7. Supervision involves four parties: the agency, the supervisor, the supervisee, and
the client. ( p. 34)
I would add a fifth party that supervision involves, that of a principled approach to involving
the community in which one works. I identify the community as small as your office setting
with all social workers participating; to an identified cultural group, such as a first nation; to
a larger community or regional group. All of these intersects into supervision make better
practice and help with better decision making at all levels for clients, agency, and community
at large. Including the community also balances power in decisions made about families and
services.
Ianello (1992) expresses a feminist perspective that within bureaucracy supervision is
used for social control, ensuring the rules of the organizations are kept. There are discussions
in feminist literature of how to move away from a hierarchical model towards a consensual
model of supervision (Hasenfeld, 1992; Feguson, Gibb, Mansbridge, Newman, RothschildWhitt, Smith, Simmons, as cited in Ianello, 1992; Ianello, 1992). Brashears (1995) suggests
achieving this through a “non-hierarchical and non-competitive workplace” (p. 7) where
workers are team oriented, collaborative and group supervised. Brashears’ suggestions may
bring a better flow of social work ethics and values between supervision, supervisor,
supervisee, and client. For the “the values of advocacy, empowerment, and self-

27
determination cannot be endorsed for clients and at the same time denied by the professionals
who serve them” (Karger, 1989 as cited in Brashears, 1995, p. 7).
As well, Bishop (2005) explains that moving away from hierarchical structures is
difficult and identifying an “institution’s structure” (p. 155) can sometimes be challenging,
even when approached with a critical lens. Many times the organizational structures in place
are positioned in such a way that when discovered, reveal multi-layered and intertwined
patriarchal forces of control that are problematic to disassemble (Bishop, 2005). It is only
when one fully understands all the premises of an organization that one can unravel its
interconnectedness with social hegemony; why supervision is set up the way it is and what it
is used for within the organization (Bishop)?
Social work supervision has direct impact on and is modeled in the work that is done
between a social worker and a client. When the principles of social work supervision are
followed, it allows the supervisee to develop into a strong practitioner or supervisor and
provide a better quality of service to all clients.
Administrative Supervisory Functions
Tsui (2005) states “the dominant function of supervision is the administrative
function, including staff, caseload, and organizational management” (p. 64). Dill and Bogo
(2009) explain that “agencies grant supervisors authority to direct others’ work and
supervisors use both formal power, such as rewards, coercion, and position, as well as,
informal power derived from their expert knowledge and relationships with their
supervisees” (p. 88). Bogo and McKnight (2005) assert that “administrative supervision
refers to case assignment, and monitoring of assessment, intervention planning, and ongoing
work to assist social workers to implement agency policy and procedures and work within

28
the structure of the agency” (p. 51). Kadushin (1992) expands this definition describing
administrative functions as focusing on the accountability and essential qualities that are
displayed by a supervisor responding to the authority and power given to the supervisor by
an organization in relationship to such key administrative tasks as:
(1) staff recruitment and selection; (2) inducting and placing the worker; (3) unit
work planning; (4) work assignment; (5) work delegating; (6) monitoring, reviewing,
and evaluating work; (7) coordinating work; (8) acting as a channel of
communication; (9) acting as an advocate; (10) administrative buffering; and (11)
acting as a change agent and community liaison. (p. 46)
Through operationalizing these tasks the “supervisor evaluates the worker’s
performance and participates in decisions about the supervisee’s career advancement and
salary increases; In this capacity, the supervisor is accountable to the public to ensure that
competent practice and effective service is delivered” (Gibelman & Schervish, 1997 as cited
in Bogo & McKnight, 2005, p. 52). The administrative function in supervision also
encompasses involvement in policy making, allocating organizational resources, and
negotiating with services in the community (Austin, 1981; Kadushin, 1985; Mosley,
Megginson & Pietri, 1989; Patti, 1977; 1978; 1983; Shulman, 1982; as cited in Erera &
Lazar, 1994a, p. 40). Though supervisory administrative functions are reflective of an
organization’s needs being met, some argue that the supervisor also has some very specific
administrative responsibilities to supervisees, such as: “to have space to explore and express
personal distress, re-stimulation, transference or counter-transference that may be brought up
by the work” (Hawkins & Shohet, 1989; as cited in Smith, 2005, para. 22); to help them
better use their individual skills and specialized knowledge; and to help supervisees take

29
initiative with regards to organizational changes. Smith (2005) explains that in taking on this
type of administrative capacity one starts looking at supervisees in a strength-based way and
not a deficit type approach that organizations appear to take through the administrative
function.
In reviewing the literature regarding administrative functions of supervision, it is
clear that many writers focus on the duties and responsibilities that the supervisor has to the
organization, as well as the public that tend to fund human service organizations (Bogo &
McKinght, 2005; Erera & Lazar, 1994a, 1994b; Kadushin, 1992; Tsui, 2005). Also, it is
noted that administrative functions tend to make up the majority of supervision time in
bureaucratic type settings (Greenspan et al., 1994). Bogo and McKnight (2005) explain that
there are different levels on the ladder of administrative accountability to the organization for
social work supervisors, ranging from micro management to fairly autonomous practice.
However, administrative activities of supervisors are always pointed towards meeting the
agency or organizational mandates (Kadushin, 1992; Kadushin et al., 2009). The more forprofit or bureaucratic the nature of an organization, the more administrative functions appear
to proverbially push out the educational functions, until there appears to be little room for the
supervisors to practice them (Bogo & Mcknight, 2005; Kadushin, 1992; Kadushin et al.,
2009). Overall, administrative supervision is an essential part of any organization; without it
organizations would cease to exist.
Educative Supervisory Functions
Though administrative supervision is important to the running of organizations, the
educative supervisory function “is widely acknowledged to be the essence of social work
supervision, [and] consists in the transmission of professional knowledge and skills”

30
(Kadushin, 1985; Munson, 1983; as cited in Erera & Lazar, 1994, p. 40). Some authors view
educative supervision as the supervision that is necessary for each individual supervisee to
receive the professional development they require to realize their full potential in any field of
practice (Smith, 2005; Erera & Lazar, 1994a). Smith (2005) expands on this view by adding
that educational supervision includes drawing “upon data from direct firsthand observation of
actual teaching, or other professional events, and involves face-to-face and other associated
interactions between the observer(s) and the person(s) observed in the course of analyzing
the observed professional behaviours and activities and seeking to define and/or develop next
steps toward improved performance” (para. 60). “Educational supervision encompasses
activities that develop the professional capacity of supervisees through teaching them
knowledge and skills, and facilitating self-awareness” (Barker, 1995; Munson, 2002, as cited
in Dill & Bogo, 2009, p. 88). Kadushin (1992) explains that “educational supervision is
sometimes termed clinical supervision” (p. 135). The term clinical supervision includes a
focus on the dynamics of the client situation, the interactions between client and worker, and
the developing practice of the worker (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Gibelman & Schervish,
1997; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002, as cited in Dill & Bogo, 2009). Many authors explain that
“these tasks are carried out on the basis of the principles of adult learning and professional
socialization” (Munson, 1983, as cited in Erera & Lazar, 1994, p. 40).
Kadushin (1992) explains that educational supervision needs to focus on the
supervisor’s role in developing the skills of the supervisee by using the supervisor-supervisee
relationship to model problem-solving behaviors. Bruce and Austin (2000) outline what
Kadushin gives as the main considerations of the supervisor-supervisee association including
three stages of relationship development:

31
(1) establishing the structure and schedule of individual conferences, (2) serving as an
impetus to self-initiated learning by modeling the use of feedback to facilitate
learning, and (3) concluding the supervisory meeting by modeling the same
disengaging process used with clients. (p. 90)
According to Kadushin (1992), six principles guide the process of educational supervision.
We learn best: (1) “if we are highly motivated to learn” (p. 183); (2) “ when we can devote
most of our energies in the learning situation, to learning” (p. 186); (3) “when learning is
attended by positive satisfactions – when it is successful and rewarding” (p. 190); (4) if we
are actively involved in the learning process” (p. 193); (5) “if the content is meaningfully
presented” (p. 194); and (6) “if the supervisor takes into consideration the supervisee’s
uniqueness as a learner” (p. 196). hook (2002) explains that as one places “importance on
processes of dialogue and communication, in a climate of mutual respect, then the issue is
not so much about us as professionals bringing about change in service users, but one in
which we all mutually participate in a joint reconstruction of different viewpoints” (p. 167).
One can postulate that as the processes are given focus in an administrative and
educative environment there can be a mutual exchange of beliefs and practices, which
provides an environment that changes both the supervisor and the supervisee. The difficulty
of performing these two functions together in an organization such as MCFD is that one may
not have time to allow process to unroll, and in such a hierarchical environment, there may
not be room to deconstruct the administrative barriers in a way for the educative dialogue to
take place (Bishop, 2005). Overall, the supervisor needs to be in constant dialogue with the
supervisee to engage the supervisee in continual development and learning to ameliorate the
clinical experience. The importance of educative supervision is underscored by “evidence

32
that practitioners are exploring alternative modes of supervision to meet their professional
needs, moving the focus away from staff and organizational concerns” (Noble & Irwin, 2009,
p. 353). The social work supervisee knows that in the current neoliberal climate they must
meet their own developmental, educational, professional and reflective needs outside of the
workplace. Social workers are forming “communities of practice” (Noble & Irwin, 2009, p.
353) with some social workers coming together outside of the workplace to discuss their
work, and at times educative supervision is purchased to facilitate the individuals’ clinical
needs.
Are Administrative and Educative Functions of Supervision Compatible?
Greenspan et al. (1994) revealed data that suggests supervision of social workers can
be administrative, educative, or a combination of the functions. “Despite strong advocates for
one position or the other there has never been a definitive resolution as to efficacy of
supervisory content being administrative, clinical or a mix” (Austin,1956; Berkowitz, 1952;
Gitterman & Miller, 1977; Kadushin, 1967; Leader, 1957; Pettes, 1967; Westheimer, 1977;
as cited in Greenspan et al. 1994, p. 37). In reviewing the literature, one can find many
debates as to whether administrative and educational supervision are compatible.
Some authors suggest that when practiced by a skillful supervisor administrative and
educative supervision can be beneficial to the social worker and organization (Crea, 2010;
Greenspan et al. 1994; Rauktis & Koeske, 1994; Tromski-Klingshirn, 2007). TromskiKlingshirn and Davis (2007) found that “benefits were reported by 72.5% (n = 50) of the
respondents whose supervisors served in both the clinical and administrative supervisor role”
(p. 301), including to their career, ongoing learning, and profession. Greenspan et al. (1994)
would also support this finding as the majority of clinicians in their study found that any type

33
supervision was for their own good. Even though the supervisor may experience role
ambiguity and confusion, it was important for the supervisees to have someone that they
could go to for answers to questions about agency policies, and help in their professional
development (Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007).
Due to the differences in the administrative and educative functions of supervision
(see Figure 2.), Tromski-Klingshirn and Davis (2007) explain that it is important for the
supervisor to know and understand what function they are using and for what purpose they
are using it for. If the clarity is not present, this can lead to confusion for the supervisee and
frustration for the supervisor in conveying the proper message (Tromski-Klingshirn, 2007).
Smith (2005) suggests that dual role supervisors have power coming from the agency that
grants authority to the supervisor to act administratively, and power from the role as “experts
in their field” (para. 39). However, Smith explains that the supervisee also has power and
gives three examples of the types of power held. First, a supervisor is dependent on the
information they receive to make decisions; the supervisee “by managing the flow and
character of information is in a position to affect how a manager sees an issue or situation”
(Smith, 2005, para. 39). Second, a supervisee may be a member of a professional community
or union and able to hold the supervisor responsible for the supervisor’s practice (Smith,
2005). Third, a supervisor usually has parameters and rules to follow when it comes to the
use of administrative or educational functions, and the supervisee can question the
supervisor’s “authority” (Smith, 2005, para. 41), if it is seen that the supervisor steps out of
the boundaries set by the agency or profession.

34
Figure 2. Administrative and Educative Supervision Cross-Comparison
Administrative Supervision


staff, caseload and organizational

Educative Supervision


transmission of professional

management (Tsui, 2005, p. 64)

knowledge and skills (Erera & Lazar,



staff recruitment and selection;

1994a, p. 40)



inducting and placing the worker;



time intensive



unit work planning;



professional development of



work assignment;



work delegating;



monitoring, reviewing, and
evaluating work;



supervisee


supervisee to supervisor


establishing the structure and
schedule of individual conferences,

coordinating work; acting as a
channel of communication;

education flowing from supervisor to



serving as an impetus to self-initiated



acting as an advocate;

learning by modeling the use of



administrative buffering; and

feedback to facilitate learning, and



acting as a change agent and



modeling

community liaison (compiled from



coaching (compiled from Kadushin,

Kadushin, 1992, p. 46).

1992 as cited in Bruce & Austin,
2000, p. 90).

Other factors that may impact the compatibility of the administrative and educative
functions of supervision are the changing sociopolitical and socioeconomic climates. Noble
and Irwin (2009) explain that in the past, supervision has complemented social work as a

35
profession. “Social work practice is underpinned by professionally defined notions of
‘competent’ and ‘accountable’ practice, and is both ethically informed and effective in
addressing its particular function, purpose and goals” (Noble & Irwin, 2009, p. 346). Thus, in
a utopian view, supervision was able to cover both the administrative and educative functions
through a humanistic approach. Supervision was similar to the relationship between social
worker and client in that it was based on a “trusting, confidential, caring, supportive and
empathic experience, which sets the atmosphere for the professional work to be undertaken”
(Noble & Irwin, 2009, p. 346). However, with the immersion of many social workers and the
organizations in which they work into bureaucratic, hierarchical formations, supervisors in
human services have been asked to take on roles that look less like a caring relationship and
more like business transaction (Hasenfeld, 1992). Adams and Balfour (1998) examine the
relationship of supervisors as good administrators, using the backdrop of the decaying
morality in Nazi Germany; they explain the “same emphasis on method and procedure that
affected the political and administrative spheres also narrowed the conception of ethics
within the professionalism” (p. 168). Adams and Balfour warn that if one is an administrator
and educator, as a social worker, one must be careful not to allow the administration to take
over the underlying ethics and tenants of one’s academic community.
Noble and Irwin (2009) found that the changing social, economic and political
climate does not lend itself to the educational function of supervision, but rather to the more
economically formed administrative functions. As the realm in which social work is carried
out changes towards a more fiscally restrained environment, the style of supervision has
followed suit. “As the social work landscape has to contend with a more conservative and
fiscally restrictive environment, so too has practice supervision become more focused on

36
efficiency, accountability and worker performance often at the expense of professional and
practice development” (Noble & Irwin, 2009, p. 345). Research also indicates that
supervisors are experiencing disillusionment and despair as they struggle to effectively
supervise their employees in an environment that does not provide an opportunity to
critically reflect on practice situations (Noble & Irwin, 2009). Our current social, economic,
and political environment does not provide a space where supervisors can easily move back
and forth between the two functions, or provide a balanced approach; it seems to be creating
an environment with a heavy reliance on the administrative function of supervision.
Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2003) present three main supervisory styles that
could either support or hinder a supervisor in the carrying out of their administrative and
educative duties, and influence the mutual compatibility of these functions. Transformational
leadership involves inspiring and nurturing supervisees by acting as a role model, clearly
articulating future goals, mentoring and empowering (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2003).
Transactional leaders appeal to a supervisee’s self-interest through exchange relationships,
which involves managing, rewarding and correcting (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2003).
Lastly, laissez-faire leadership is seen as a hands-off approach, or a failure to take
responsibility for the leadership and supervision of staff (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt,
2003). A supervisor can embody one, two, or all three of these supervisory styles; however,
they may have a natural preference for one style over another. A supervisor’s style
preference would allow for more compatibility with one function over another. Having a
supervisor with a strong preference for one style acting in a function that is outside their
natural style, could increase role conflict and ambiguity for that worker and increase levels of
incompatibility between the functions. Brashears (1995) contends that the managerialism that

37
has been imposed upon the social work model of supervision is counter to the values of the
profession and increases conflict and ambiguity experienced by supervisors. Social work
supervision has been severed “from the professional framework of social work practice”
(Brashears, 1995, p. 5).
Disney and Stephens (1994) argue “an individual should avoid being both the
administrative and the clinical supervisor. Further, they state if a supervisor is both
administrative and clinical supervisor, then the supervisor should discuss potential conflicts
with the supervisee” (as cited in Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006, p. 57). Other authors have
explained supervisors should not assume this dual role due to the following challenges:
ableism; administrators do not always make good clinical supervisors; ambiguous and
conflicting roles; classism; ethical issues; power imbalances; racism; sexism; the time needed
for effective administrative and educational supervision; and lastly, administrative
supervisory functions have different end goals than educational functions (Bogo &
McKnight, Bruce & Austin, 2000; Erera & Lazar, 1994a, 1994b; Hasenfeld, 1992; Iannello,
1992; Heugten, 2011; James, 1996; Noble & Irwin, 2009).
Ableism.
Smith, Foley, and Chaney (2008) explain that ableism “is a form of discrimination or
prejudice against individuals with physical, mental, or developmental disabilities that is
characterized by the belief that these individuals need to be fixed or cannot function as full
members of society” (p. 304). Some issues this ‘ism’ brings forward to the supervisor
working with MCFD are tied to the competence of the supervisor in overcoming possible
assumptions that individuals with disabilities are commonly viewed as being abnormal,
rather than as members of a distinct minority community (Olkin & Pledger, 2003; Reid &

38
Knight, 2006). Disability status has been viewed as a defect rather than a dimension of
difference; as well, disability has not been widely recognized as a multicultural concern by
supervisors (Olkin & Pledger, 2003). The issues surrounding supervision and ableism are
diverse – from different forms of hearing, learning, and seeing to structural impacts on the
physical environments one works in.
Administrators do not always make good clinical supervisor.
Greenspan et al. (1994) touched on another issue with this type of dual role – that of
desire not equaling ability. One may be a strong administrator, but not have the necessary
skills to be a clinician able to guide the supervisee through the needed educational functions.
Nor do all clinicians make good administrators. Due to this conundrum, researchers have
suggested the need for organizations to turn towards teaching administrators better clinical
skills in order to be able to address educational supervisory functions with supervisees
(Greenspan et al., 1994; Itshaky, 2001). As well as training clinicians to be better
administrators, Itshaky (2001) explains that those human service organizations “should direct
efforts towards developing training programs for their supervisors. Attention should be given
to increasing the awareness of supervisors regarding their use of professionalism,
confrontation, and feedback” (p. 83). However, most literature focuses on the supervisor
developing educational functions to become a better clinician, whereas there is little focus on
becoming a better administrator (Bogo & McKnight, 2005; Dill & Bogo, 2009; Greenspan et
al., 1994; Itshaky, 2001).
Ambiguous and conflicting roles.
If administrative supervisory functions are carried out by a social work supervisor,
the supervisor runs into ambiguous and conflicting roles when trying to also practice

39
educational supervisory functions. As an administrator, one tries to ensure that the agency’s
policies and mandates are being met. Within most organizations that social work supervisors
practice in, administrative functions of supervision are bureaucratic in nature (Kadushin,
1992; Tsui, 2005). There is a current trend for these human service organizations to move
towards neoliberal practices and ideologies; cutting the programs for staff development and
corroding the services to clients receiving social services (Baines, 2004; Noble & Irwin,
2009; Tang & Peters, 2006). It appears that a conflict arises between administrative and
educational roles. While carrying out the administrative functions to meet the bottom lines of
the human service agencies, supervisors may resort to cutting staff and training, or ensuring
case practice falls in line with the new practice of more service with less staff (Noble &
Irwin, 2009). Conversely, educational functions call for more staffing, ensuring that the
ethics of the profession of social work are maintained to address the issues of social justice.
However, the supervisors “are also most often the professional group targeted when poor
professional practices across the sector are identified in such areas as childcare and
protection, mental ill health, domestic and family violence, and the treatment of refugees,
asylum seekers, the elderly and people with disabilities” (Dominelli, 2002; Noble, 2004; as
cited in Noble and Irwin, 2009).
Thus, we can view a steady conflict of political administrative needs colliding with
educational functions. The role of the social worker supervisor is becoming more untenable
as the social-political landscape changes and shifts. “This change in approach and attitude is
resulting in human service work being individualized, once again, placing social work in a
social control, policing and surveillance role” (Dominelli, 2002; Hugman, 2001, 2005; Ife,
2001; Jamrozik, 2001 as cited in Noble & Irwin, 2009). This is not what Kadushin (1992)

40
envisioned as a suitable environment to build a supervisor-supervisee relationship. As well,
the principles of adult learning are not honoured in an environment where one has difficulty
finding time for supervision due to higher caseloads and less staff. One’s uniqueness is lost
through a web of administrative policy and ideological demands.
Classism.
Baines (2004) explains the global trend of financially driven policy explaining how
“demands for lower expenditures, and increased accountability have been used to justify
measures including amalgamations, decentralizations, downsizing, privatization and
contracting out” (p. 271). These policies directly impact the way that individuals are treated
due to their income and education. George and Wilding (1989) would argue that depending
on which paradigm one is looking through, one will view the impacts of the global trends
differently. If one is a functionalist, the administrative focus of MCFD as a child welfare
agency is seen as being developed out of the industrial revolution, and an “ongoing economic
and social change in society” (George & Wilding, 1989, p. 14) that will improve
organizational functionality. Conversely, looking through an anti-collectivist lens, the focus
on administrative function by MCFD is an erroneous response to the globalization of the
worlds markets and is part of the threat to “the economic and social well-being of a free
market economy” (George & Wilding, 1989, p. 15). Or, if approaching through a conflict
lens, George and Wilding could argue movement to an administrative focus is a result of
compromise between the “ruling class” (p. 15) and the “oppressed” (p. 15). Through the
conflict lens George and Wilding (1989) explain that government has a much more
significant role in the development and changing of social welfare and how it impacts the
different classes of Canadian society. It is important to note that it is not the government that

41
directly dictates the form of supervision that is used within MCFD. However, the political
demands that are placed on the organization by the government inform that administrative
tasks take the fore front, and thus resulting in less time for professional development (Noble
& Irwin, 2009).
Different end goals.
The goals may be different for administrative and educational functions but they can
have the same ends. Dill and Bogo (2009) explain that supervisors expressed a connection
concerning the support they received from their managers and what the supervisors, “in turn,
were able to give to the workers. [Supervisors] highlighted their need for managers to
validate their role as clinicians, provide emotional support to them, help them balance
clinical and administrative issues, and attend to their own reactions” (p. 97): this gives
organizational permission for the supervisor with administrative responsibilities to take the
time to provide clinical support to supervisees. One can argue that if there is not the time
dedicated to the strengthening of the supervisor as a professional through educative
supervision, they truly do not provide the best administrative supervision, as they become
preoccupied with the idea of not being able to provide educative supervision to their own
staff (Bogo & McKnight, 2005). Thus, good administrative supervision may come from good
educative supervision; however good educative supervision rarely will come from
administrative supervision.
Ethical issues.
Noble and Irwin (2009) suggest that it is better to not have the administrator as the
supervisor. Tromski-Klingshirn and Davis (2007) refer to the code of ethics produced by the
Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) that states clinical supervisors

42
should not be administrators, as this can run into two main ethical dilemmas (TromskiKlingshirn & Davis, 2007). The first dilemma comes from the dual role, as this has the
possibility to unintentionally cause unethical management of clientele (Tromski-Klingshirn
& Davis, 2007). As previously noted, the supervisee may not reveal issues of client conflict
or difficulties being experienced by the clinician in trying to service a certain client group,
possibly being apprehensive of potential repercussions from the supervisor impacting one’s
job or professional standing (Brashears, 1995; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007);
“however, avoiding the discussion of such a problem could be harmful to the client” (Falvey,
1987; as cited in Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007). Ladany, Hill, Corbett and Nutt (1996)
examined this issue and found that supervisees not disclosing issues around clinical practice
were intra-related to the supervisees’ perceptions of the characteristics of supervision, and
the scope to which supervision fit their needs, and aided their education and development.
This has direct impact on the client and is a significant ethical consideration for agencies to
respond to.
The second main ethical consideration comes from the conflict between
professional/educational and administrative demands. When one is a supervisor practicing
dual roles one must address this conflict. Noble and Irwin (2009) outline the changing socialpolitical landscape and discuss the impacts these neoliberal shifts have on the profession of
social work:
This retreat from a welfare state is undermining social work’s mission to fight for
collectivist values of social justice, to engage in critical exploration and analyses of
social problems and to draw attention to the new policy agenda that is denying human
and democratic rights to some sections of the community. It also prevents social

43
workers from providing a strong voice demanding a fair redistribution of wealth and
societal resources. (p. 350)
The ethical issue is formed through administrative functions being carried out by the
supervisors who are working for organizations that have mandates to practice new policy,
new agendas and politically established reductions to services, while trying to be “clinical
supervisors, being the ‘gatekeepers of the profession’ (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998), while
having the professional responsibility (ethical and legal) for the delivery of treatment by their
supervisees that follows the standards of care for the profession” (Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006,
p. 57). For many supervisors this may be an unsustainable position. However, the majority of
supervisors in bureaucracies will have to make peace with it or move from that forum of
practice (Kadushin, 1992; Tsui, 2005).
Power imbalances.
Administrative supervisory functions also provide for a power imbalance between the
supervisor and supervisee. In conducting the administrative functions of staffing, monitoring,
reviewing and evaluating work, a supervisor may end up conducting “administrative tasks,
such as discipline and accountability, [that] may have the consequence of increasing workers
resistance to open themselves up to the educational process” (Erera & Lazar, 1994a, p. 49).
Tromski-Klingshorn (2006) states that “supervisees may fear disclosing potentially
problematic issues they are facing with clients to the dual role clinical supervisoradministrative supervisor, fearing administrative consequences (e.g., not receiving a pay
raise; being terminated from their job)” (pp. 57-58); “Thus, the performance of both worker
and supervisor decreases” (Erera & Lezar, 1994a, p. 49). Supervisees and supervisors do not

44
always feel safe to directly address supervision-related problems, fearing negative
consequences. Caspi and Read (2002) explain that:
Such fears are well founded, as it is not uncommon for supervisors to dismiss their
own role in relationship difficulties, placing the blame fully on the supervisee,
frequently with negative evaluations such as, supervisee is unable to effectively use
supervision, supervisee is not open to feedback, or even more serious, supervisee is
oppositional, resistive to learning, and should consider that social work may not be an
appropriate profession. (p. 101)
On the other hand, the supervisor may feel vulnerable to any negative input from the
supervisee, as this leaves the supervisor open for criticism or even job action from their
supervisor (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012). In a hierarchical and bureaucratic system, a
supervisor who opens up to supervision that change is needed to address administrative
issues in different formats runs into issues with procedural rules in the human service
organization, and faces the same power imbalance issues with the supervisor’s administrator
(Mullaly, 2007; Bishop, 2005).
Racism.
Due to the nature of bureaucratic organizations, the ethical supervision of staff can be
at question if administrative and educative supervision is being completed by the same
supervisor. James (1996) explains that “institutional racism exists where established rules
and policies reflect and produce differential treatment of various groups within organizations
or institutions” (pp. 26 – 27). James goes on to say that racism is reflected in the employees
in the work place. As one looks at the percentage of staff and supervisors who are racial
minorities, one may find that the supervisors and managers are at a lower ratio than non–

45
supervisory staff. This may be due to the structures of the hierarchical organization that
would need to change to remove a racist underpinning found in hiring practices, procedures
and policies of the organization. Thus, a reflection and change in policy and practices may be
in order if ratios of persons employed by an organization, at all levels, are not equivalent to
those who are being serviced (James, 1996). Inman (2006) explains that if one is not from the
client population one is servicing then “to demonstrate multicultural competence, a trainee
needs not only to identify cultural factors that may affect client problems … but also
integrate the impact of these factors in conceptualizing relevant strategies … when working
with the client” (p.74). Inman also describes the importance of educative supervision in
preventing unintentional racism:
Supervisors’ awareness, openness, and sincere attention to cultural and racial factors,
guidance and explicit discussion of culture-specific issues, being vulnerable and
sharing their own struggles, and providing opportunities for multicultural activities
have been identified as facilitative components of a culturally responsive supervisory
relationship. (p. 74)
Inman expresses that, “in addition to awareness, knowledge, skills, and other individual
variables, effective working alliance can potentially affect multicultural competence” (p.82).
Sexism.
When one looks at the hierarchal structure and the patriarchal overlay of supervision
in a bureaucracy, there are issues that come to the forefront with regards to sexism and the
power imbalance this can bring to the supervisor – supervisee relationship (Ianello, 1992;
Grant & Mills, 2006; Runté & Mills, 2006). One could argue that due to the “socio-political
imperatives (e.g. Cold War ideology), embedded ideas of gender divisions” (Runté & Mills,

46
2006, p. 715) are still present and prevalent in our society. Issues that include advantage
seeking, hierarchical competition, militaristic, misogynistic, patriarchal, and rewards systems
for compliance (McDonald, 20162306 [thesis review]) are some essential discussions and
ideas that may never be brought forward in supervision.
A discussion of how sexism is still pervasive in our work places is provided by Runté
and Mills (2006), as follows:
The discourse of work-family conflict that presents work and family as
incommensurable spheres remains dominant in management theory. That this conflict
discourse remains rooted in the social context of 50 years past should serve to
emphasize a need to challenge this hegemonic paralysis. Interpretation of the past has
serious consequences for the present. In the ongoing circular process of interpreting
past event through present assumption, the interpreter is in effect understanding the
present through the past. Present assumptions and world views, our knowledge of
ourselves, are modified as a result of the questions that the past has pressed on our
present understandings. (p. 715)
As a supervisor providing administrative and educative supervision, I was not always aware
when sexism impacted how I carried out my supervisory duties or if I was acting in a sexist
manner. I was definitely not aware of the conversations that were not happening with me due
to me being a male supervisor, supervising almost exclusively female staff. I could be a great
administrator and ensure everything was being accomplished: clients visited, court
documents filed, reports written, and vacations logged. However, I was not aware of the
pervasiveness of sexism and how it impacted me by distorting my paradigm of
understanding.

47
For example, when I hired a staff member to into a vacant position, I hired a male. He
was the first male that had been hired; before this hiring, I had hired exclusively females.
Immediately, the staff questioned if he got the job because he was the only male that had
applied. I and two other supervisors felt he had fairly won the competition for the position.
At that time, I did not reflect on how sexism could have influenced my decision to hire him. I
was the chair of the panel and the two other supervisors who were on the panel were female.
I did not give it a second thought. However, over the months the staff kept on questioning
him and his work, with what I thought to be too much scrutiny. He was the only male
working in the field at the time. The two other female supervisors felt he was achieving
appropriate levels of service. They also mentioned that their staff members, who were all
female, also questioned his hiring. They explained to their staff that it was due to him being
the most qualified applicant, as they were on the panel. At the time, none of us who were
panel members discussed the possible influence of sexism or how one would know if had
been counter-balanced. It is a silent, ever there ism [emphasis added] that lurks in the
shadows of our minds and culture. People are subconsciously impacted by it and hardly ever
discuss it (Grant and Mills, 2006; Runté & Mills, 2006). As a supervisor providing dual role
supervision, I was not equipped to deal with the issue. When I discussed the issue with my
supervisor, who was male, he brushed it off. I am not sure if I properly addressed the impact
of sexism in supervision. However, one must at least be aware that it is there, between the
conscious and subconscious, impacting how we interact with one another as supervisor and
supervisee.

48
Time needed for effective supervision.
Administrative supervisors have hectic schedules and have less time to carry out
educational functions of supervision (Falvey, 1987; as cited in Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis,
2007). The issue of not enough time comes to the forefront of supervisors taking on both
administrative and clinical supervision functions. One needs only to look at the changing
social services in the western hemisphere that are influenced by neoliberal ideologies to
understand the strains that are put on the middle manager; the administrative supervisor
(George & Wilding, 2002 as cited in Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007). Neoliberal cuts to
MCFD’s budget equates to less staff doing the already difficult child protection work (Tang
& Peters 2006). Gustafson, Eriksson, Strandberg & Norberg (2010) address the social service
field as one of the most difficult fields to work in, with a higher rate of burn out than many
others. It appears that as human services and staffing are cut, concurrently, more
administrative duties are moved from upper management to the supervisors (Erera & Lazar,
1994a; Noble & Irwin, 2009); slowly squeezing the time and energies that supervisors with
dual roles have for clinical supervision.
Conversely, supervisors who are performing educational functions are focused on
conveying, or developing, knowledge and skills to the supervisee (Brashears, 1995;
Kadushin, 1992; Tsui, 2005). The essence of what the clinical social work supervisors are to
focus on is the transfer of professional knowledge and skills, not the minutiae of running an
agency. Tromski-Klingshirn and Davis (2007) express that “clinical supervision needs to
focus on clinical issues, such as clinical case review and processing counselor–client
dynamics, because it is through these clinical activities that close supervision of a
supervisee’s clinical skills are maintained” (p. 296). Thus, one comes to an understanding

49
that as more duties are heaped upon the administrative supervisor, the less time there is for
educational functions to help the supervisee maneuver through the different aspects of
practice (Bruce & Austin, 2000; Ezra & Lazar, 1994a; Kadushin, 1992; Smith, 2005;
Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006).

50
Chapter Three: Research Procedures
Quandary
Some writers recommend not having the same supervisor perform administrative and
educational functions and provide good arguments for this. However, they appear to leave
room for the practise of the dual role supervisor, as most give proposals to mediate the two
roles. It appears that they do this as the majority of human services organizations and
agencies practise some form of dual role supervision. It is noted that where administrative
and educational functions are practised by the same supervisor, the supervisor needs support
from the agency to practise both. As well, the supervisor needs to engage in developing
agreements and dialogue with the supervisee to discuss issues of ethics, power and time
allotment surrounding supervision. Practising dual role supervision, intertwining the two
functions together, can have some benefits when approached with the correct techniques; if
not approached right, dual role supervision can be detrimental to the internal and external
clients (see pages 48-63). Thus, it is important to further explore the compatibility of roles
between administrative and educative supervision.
Approach
Location.
One’s paradigm of thought shapes the epistemological sphere one uses to explore and
discover the temporal and spiritual. Thought, language and context of a person, culture or
society are all used to move forward understanding of self or others’ experiences, and place
them in some kind of context (Absolon & Willett, 2005). Looking inward one can “locate;
we search through our memory banks and retrieve information about who we are, where we
come from and our roots” (Absolon & Willett, 2005, p. 115). This allows us to be aware of

51
ourselves as individuals and researchers. Due to my belief that policy is used for social
control, I use a “critical social theory” (Houston, 2001; Sutherland, 1990, p. 129) lens to
reveal issues affecting supervision. I began my research with an extensive literature review
and then pursued what Creswell (2003) describes as a “qualitative method” (p. 20) approach
to my research. My paradigm of belief and all the assumptions that go with it lead me to
pursue social justice through my writing and exploration of the data.
I follow the belief that one’s assumptions of human behaviour, various social,
economic and political processes, shape one’s approach to research (Absolon & Willett,
2005). Assumptions of what one may find when researching may impact the types of
questions one might ask, the data one collects and what findings one may report, or find
interesting (Absolon & Willett, 2005; George and Wilding, 1989). As a researcher, I have
personal underlying assumptions and lean towards certain approaches that align with my web
of belief as a filter to understand the universe. My paradigm of understanding influences the
type of research I produce.
Subjectivity in research.
I have chosen to use a qualitative approach/method of study because of the need to go
outside the bounds of quantitative inquiry. Thompson (2002) argues that “core assumptions
associated with the medical model – the objectivity of researchers and the naiveté of the
researched” (p. 96) are not suitable for use outside of the quantitative sphere. Thus, I have
chosen to utilize autoethnography and bring self and subjectivity into the qualitative research.
Absolon and Willett (2005) argue that researchers need to bring “subjectivity, credibility,
accountability, and humanity” (p. 113) to research through declaring ones assumptions and
revealing one’s self. I believe that supervision of staff within child welfare settings directly

52
impacts the type of work that is done with the most vulnerable of families, and the children
who appear to remain voiceless in research. Thus, supervision in the arena of these settings is
important to study. Due to supervision being confidential and records being kept in-house,
there are some ethical considerations when reviewing supervision inside most organizations,
and pursuing participants who have been involved with supervision. So much so, that MCFD,
the human service agency I worked for, agreed to allow me to interview supervisors who
were Team Leaders and Community Service Managers, only if they were able to “vet the
questions and control outcomes” (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012, p. 10). MCFD contacts
explained that due to the nature of the work that is done and how findings could be used for
negative media campaigns against the ministry: “We do not want any negative outcomes”
(Winofsky & Calvert, 2012, p. 5), stated one director. I suppose I was not surprised when I
left MCFD in September 2012, and MCFD’s ability to ‘control’ me and my research. I was
no longer welcome to complete research with MCFD staff and summarily had previously
granted permissions revoked. As long as I was an employee with MCFD to access
interviewees.
Impacts on design and mode of research.
There are questions brought forward in articles discussing the economic costs to
research and the centric view of able, adult, white funders. Does the funder or gatekeeper into
the community (community being MCFD) for research want to fund studies that would lend
to changing the social construct of knowledge (Absolon & Willett, 2005; Carter, 2009;
Shaver, 2005; Thompson, 2002)? The desire to hold on to the social construct of knowledge
reflects French-English ideology of the 1700’s, which is still used for the “colonization and
genocide” of the Aboriginal peoples (Absolon & Willett, 2005, p. 117). This lends to the

53
question: Is research into organizations like MCFD less available to move forward and away
from the Euro-ethnocentric studies, or is research funding dependent on the white-centric,
self-perpetuating assumptions of what is good or non-harmful research (Absolon & Willett,
2005)?
This leads to the exploration of the types of questions one would ask and the data one
would collect and report. Creswell (2003) explores the idea that the one funding the research
may impact the research question and the outcomes of the research. I found this with MCFD:
I cannot believe that this organization will not allow research to better its’ services.
They agreed to my research and the questions were vetted, but because I am no longer
an employee and they do not have control over the findings they just ended my
research with them. I just do not understand why an organization would not want to
improve their supervision. (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012, p. 13)
Denzin and Lincoln (2008) point out that it is a difficult time to push for change, as many
“conservative regimes” (p. 3) are funding and trying to push models of quantitative research
that lend to perpetuation of conservative white ideologies. As well, Creswell (2003)
examines who may be the “audience” (p. 23) of the researcher, and states that this can impact
the very design and thus would impact the questions and data one may collect. On the same
line of thinking about audience, with different contemplations, Absolon and Willett (2005)
argue that it is the understanding of one’s location, and in fact location is elemental to
“methodology” (p. 106) used for research. This will lead to the answers of what data one is to
collect and what findings will be discussed, as the community must be involved. One of the
limitations of my study is that I cannot involve the community of supervisors from MCFD
directly. I argue that the research findings one may realize as interesting are attached to one’s

54
location, as defined by Absolon and Willett (2005). As well, the researcher’s compilation of
past events, the epistemological understanding of the universe and one’s place in it, are all
screened through one’s comprehension of language, culture, and social interactions and will
impact what one researches and reports.
Research positionality.
I am a person of many peoples, cultures, and memories flowing through my soul and
yet I have not found one specifically that I am more attached to than the other. I find if I
share my roots, I often am judged by many as not upholding one end or another of the
cultural contract. In my formative years I was raised in poverty in a Euro-centric home. I was
instilled with a belief that education is important; through the lack of any of my extended
family members completing education past grade twelve. My father had a series of strokes
when I was 16 years old and started a struggle with dementia for the next twenty five years of
his life. My mother was a caregiver for him up until he passed away on December 10, 2011.
Some of my uncles and aunties tell me stories of residential school and I see the effects upon
them and their children. I remember my uncles hiding in our home from the police and from
gang members who wanted them dead; some have died in prison, some still live still in
poverty.
I am a husband to an amazing woman and father to three children through which I
find great fulfillment and much joy. I have a strong desire and belief in the need for social
justice, as well as critical analysis of social policy pertaining to child welfare and the lives of
children. I suppose I have under-pinning beliefs regarding some aspects of social programs
that George and Wilding (1989) reveal through their discussion of how neo-liberal and neo-

55
conservative ideologies use social programs for the “control of proletariat by the
bourgeoisie” (p. 14) and upper class.
Due to my underlying assumptions of social injustice and social policy being used for
social control, I would lean towards a “critical social theory approach” (Sutherland, 1990, p.
129) to research, however, my Euro-centric influences also lend to a retrospective historical
analysis. I believe this approach would allow me to make peace with the different voices of
historical significance that keep calling to me to honour them through locating myself
(Absolon & Willett, 2005).
I must confess: I am a male and worked as an able-bodied supervisor with the Public
Service of British Columbia, carrying out dual role supervision – being both administrator
and educator as a child protection integrated team leader for six years.
Methodology
I set out to complete a study with regards to supervision in social work settings. I was
moved by my location towards an autoethnographic approach, mixed with a retrospective
historical record comparison. I follow that “autoethnography is a genre of writing and
research that connects the personal to the cultural, placing the self within the social context”
(Chang, 2008, p. 181). Autoethnography is a relatively new approach to research in the world
of academia (Chang, 2008 & Witkin, 2014). Though I place the explanation of
autoethnography under the heading of methodology it does not quite fit. Witkin (2014) gives
his view, “autoethnography is not a variant of conventional research; rather it resides in the
interstices between research and literature” (p. 3).
I completed my study using autoethnographic approaches through having myself
interviewed, with names and identifying information of participants remaining confidential

56
and protected. This type of qualitative interview method that was completed for my study
removed personal and identifying information, and is stored in a locked cabinet for one year
after the thesis defense is complete, and then the interview will be shredded. My vulnerability
comes from my being a previous team leader and supervisor colleague for the part of the
population I am studying. I am a researcher and autoethnographer and historiographer. Some
supervisors may see me as an insider and not want information about them shared, as Shaver
(2005) has discussed. However, others may show suspicion and see me as an outsider and
may not trust my espoused reasons for this study. To this end, I have no nefarious reasons for
completing this look into supervision; however, I hold to the reason for this study, and that is
to try to improve praxis for all supervisors and service to all external clients.
I will pursue a qualitative method approach to my research. I used an
autoethnographic approach:
Back and forth autoethnographers gaze . . . focusing outward on social and cultural
aspects of their personal experience; then, inward, exposing a vulnerable self that is
moved by and may move through, refract, and resist cultural interpretations. As they
zoom backward and forward, inward and outward, distinctions between personal and
cultural become blurred, sometimes beyond distinct recognition. (Ellis, 2004,
pp. 37-38)
I utilized the interview of myself to ensure that I used my voice to move between being a
supervisor, which is subjective in nature, mixed with that of a researcher. I leaned on
Chang’s (2008) promotion of autoethnography, mixing “cultural analysis and interpretation
with narrative details. It follows the anthropological and social scientific inquiry approach

57
rather than descriptive or performative storytelling. That is…stories of autoethnographers to
be reflected upon, analyzed, and interpreted within their broader social context” (p. 46).
I will peel back the layers of MCFD culture to reveal the inside of an organization
that is very protective of internal practices. I present four basic criteria that make me an
insider expert on supervision in MCFD: (1) I have experienced supervision from supervisors
within MCFD; (2) at the time of the supervision I was employed by MCFD; (3) I also
received supervision from what I would name clinical supervisors outside of MCFD while
employed by MCFD; and (4) I was a supervisor within MCFD (Shaver, 2005). Through my
autoethnographic voice, I will compare the results of my interview with other researcher’s
findings, and will complete a focused cross-historical review.
Autoethnography
How do I ensure that I stay true to autoethnography? That is the question I have asked
myself many times throughout the preparation of my thesis. Chang (2008) argues
“autoethnography should be ethnographic in its methodological orientation, cultural in its
interpretive orientation, and autobiographical in its content” (p. 48). As an ethnographer
collects data by observing and writing about it, so to the autoethnographer records what is
observed. Duckart (as cited in Chang, 2008) explains that “self is a subject to look into and a
lens to look through to gain an understanding of societal culture” (p. 49). Though I give my
story and my understanding of that story, my story is “framed in the context of the bigger
story, a story of the society [supervision in a human service organization] to make
autoethnography, ethnographic” (p. 49). Chang explains, “like ethnography, autoethnography
pursues the ultimate goal of cultural understanding underlying autobiographical experiences”
(p. 49). Overall, autoethnographers:

58
Undergo the usual ethnographic research process of data collection, data
analysis/interpretation, and report writing. They collect field data by means of
participation, observation, interview and document review; verify data by
triangulating sources and contents from multiple origins; analyze and interpret data to
decipher the cultural meanings of events, behaviours and thoughts; and write
ethnography. Like ethnographers, autoethnographers are expected to treat their
autobiographical data with critical, analytical, and interpretive eyes to detect cultural
undertones of what is recalled, observed and told. At the end of a thorough selfexamination in its cultural context, autoethnographers hope to gain a cultural
understanding of self and others directly and indirectly connected to self. (p. 49)
Witkin (2014) gives six shared characteristics as to what the reader may expect when
interacting with the text in an autoethnography. First, Witkin (2014) explains that it is a
“story, a narrative” (p. 3) that allows the researcher/autoethnographer to, “explore the
historically and culturally embedded social processes that help explain particular
understanding and actions of the author/subject in relation to some significant experience,
event, or understanding” (p. 3). For example, as a supervisor I have experienced being a
supervisor. I have historical understanding of my supervisory experience. I sometimes acted
in ways that I feel were in conflict and even contrary to beliefs. Through autoethnography, I
was able to explore and understand the embedded social processes that impact me as a
supervisor in a child welfare setting. Autoethnography is so much more then interviews or
crunching numbers – it allows the reader to engage with the study in vivid ways, that other
types of research do not allow for (Chang, 2008; Witkin, 2014).

59
This engagement is done through what Witkin (2014) identifies as the second trait of
an autoethnography:
It is written as a dialogue. Autoethnography uses a variety of literary conventions to
explore its subject matter and communicate in ways that will give readers a sense of
the author’s experience. Dialogue, poetry, prose, imagery and so on are all possible
tools that an autoethnographer may employ. Descriptions tend to be multilayered and
the writing evocative. Pragmatism is the guide: how to communicate the lived
experience of the author/subject in ways that will help the readers gain sense of that
experience. (p. 3)
Examples of dialogue I share in these writings are my exchanges with one of my supervisors
from MCFD. My writing and explanation of my experience as a supervisor evoked visceral
feeling within this supervisor, who then asked me to take out parts of my writing, so as to not
invoke these types of feelings. I of course suggested that it would be better to leave those
experiences in the thesis to help other readers understand the experience of being a
supervisor. So, I left them in the thesis and explained that I would not take them out. I
believe that Chang (2008) would agree:
That those with power are frequently least aware of or at least willing to acknowledge
its existence as well as their role in maintaining inequitable social and cultural capital
that leads to student marginalization (Delpit, 1995; Stanton-Slazar, 1997, 2001). In
fact, Paulo Freire (1985) would say that, because of privilege, dominant cultural
members actually resist change toward equity. Therefore it is highly appropriate that
an autoethnographic approach is utilized. (p. 181)

60
The third format autoethnography takes, “I am both the main character in the story
and its narrator. It is my experience that is center stage. At the same time, that experience is
not isolated; it occurs within a social and cultural context” (Witkin, 2014, p. 3).
Fourth, Witkin (2014) explains the connection that forms between the
autoethnographer, the audience and the words written. Witkin focuses on the importance of
how, “authors interact with readers through the text, evoking varied reactions in which
interpretation is encouraged and multiple meanings are welcome” (p. 4).
The fifth aspect is tied to the forth and is why readers become more connected with
the texts written in an autoethnographical style: “Authors, talk not only about their
experience but from it” (Witkin. 2014, p. 4). This allows for a richness and depth that would
otherwise be difficult to achieve if the author was not brining both views of self and
conversation about self in any given experience. I believe to be honest with the research and
the reader one must reveal self and give explanation of one’s experience (Denzin & Lincoln,
2008).
Lastly, my autoethnography may reveal my truth and understanding at this time;
however, “it is not about discovering truth in an absolute sense but about enriching
understanding” (Witkin, 2014, p. 4). In this sixth point Witkin goes on to explain that as we
travel down the path of understanding, that which has been written, we can go layer after
layer and discover more profound meanings. Here the writer and the reader are able to
experience the text through each’s own lived experience. I believe that autoethnography is a
voice that has not been used much in the exploration of supervision in a bureaucratic
organization like MCFD.

61
Limitations
Some argue that autoethnography has limitations in not being able to be validated or
generalizable. In using an autoethnographic voice I must be aware of these possible issues. I
will attempt to overcome these limitations with the use of past studies to triangulate findings
for validity and generalizability of the study. As well, to explore other supervisor’s
comments and discussions as viewed through my paradigmatic historical approach. Kimpson
(2005) illuminates why it is important to use this form of research: “Autobiographical
narratives also create an opportunity for us to construct ourselves and our research in ways
that may be of methodological and political interest to others struggling with alternate forms
of representation of the lives of marginalized people” (p.73).
Duncan (2004) explains that in establishing the quality of an autoethnographic study
one should address “six key issues regarding the legitimacy and representation” (p. 8) of
one’s research. They are “issues related to study boundaries, instrumental utility, construct
validity, external validity, reliability, and scholarship” (Duncan, 2004, p. 8). One should
address these areas due to the partiality for different forms of research that have a more
pointed focus on quantitative methods and less value for “inner knowing” (Duncan, 2004, p.
8). Also, I will use this approach because I am using “predetermined criteria relevant”,
(Guest, Bunce & Johnson, 2006, p. 61) to one experiencing supervision within MCFD.
Another reason for using this approach is that I already know at the “outset of the study”
(Koerber & McMichael, 2009, p. 465) I want to study the BC child welfare supervisors’
experiences, and understanding of administrative and educative functions of supervision.
This is a very specific group. Due to the closed door approach of MCFD, I was not able to
approach any of their current staff to find those participants who would lend to an

62
appropriate section “of participants who possess certain traits” (Koerber & McMichael, 2009,
p. 464); specifically, people who are supervisors with MCFD. However, I drew on my six
years of experiences with supervisor colleagues. I also was able to draw on my 12 years of
experience being supervised inside MCFD, and some supervisors who no longer work for
MCFD, that have shared their experiences regarding dual role supervision.
I took into account my research positionality (see pp. 69-70) when choosing methods
of researching the compatibility of administrative and educative functions of supervision.
Within MCFD, supervisors are mandated to carry out the dual role. However, this does not
stop some supervisors from connecting with a person outside of the organization to obtain
educative supervision (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012). I used the autoethnographic voice as
Chang (2008) explains:
First, you can investigate yourself as a main character and others as supporting actors
in your life story. Second, you can include others as co-participants or co-informants
in your study. Third, you can study others as the primary focus, yet also as an entry to
your world. (p. 65)
Though I am studying others and using others as co-participants, this is done through
historical review of my personal records, and some contemporary discussions with those who
were supervisors within MCFD. I was more able to bring forward my voice as not only
researcher, but myself as supervisor: One who has experienced dual role supervision and one
that also engages in providing dual role supervision. As well, the autoethnographical purview
brings rich dialogue between other studies that I reference. The third example that Chang
outlines, is the primary format I use of autoethnography – focusing on myself by another,
through the interview of myself, and using this as an entry into my world. This allows for not

63
only my insights to be revealed, but also my failures and learning points to be more honestly
explored.
Data Analysis
The qualitative data was collected by two different digital recording devices and
transcribed by myself. The interview was semi structured with an open ended format to the
questions. With my voice being the main focus of this study, I ensured that other voices are
heard through previously completed research on supervision inside human service
organizations, and through use of personal communications with presently practicing and
past supervisors, as well as my personal journals. This allows for more validity and
generalizability (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008, p. 391-392). I also give my voice to the
research to provide more richness and context.
With regards to qualitative research, Collingridge and Gantt (2008) define validity as
being similar to quantitative research, in that both aspire to have defensible ends, ones that
can be measured. More clearly defined: “measuring what one purports to measure in
qualitative research means selecting an appropriate method for a given question and applying
that method in a coherent, justifiable, and rigorous manner” (p. 391). I believe that I have
chosen the right methods for the research I wish to complete. As well, I use Wolcott’s (1994)
guides for interviewing to help produce a valid result. Valid in so far that I ensure I record
accurately and am candid in my findings, that I report fully. I believe, as does Heidegger
(1962), that “humans are embedded in their world to such an extent that subjective
experiences are inextricably linked with social, cultural, and political contexts” (Lopez &
Willis, 2004, p. 729).

64
Summary
Within this context, I must be aware of the reason I picked this research for a thesis.
The type of phenomena I will collect; the impact I have on the data collection and the themes
I observe in the data. Mullaly (1997) suggests that, “social work is not politically neutral; it is
a political act or practice: If it does nothing politically it has removed itself as a force for
change, which in effect supports the status quo” (p. 196). My research is political and has a
political end: to suggest approaches that should be followed to ensure that social work
supervisees, whether the frontline staff, Team Leader, manager, or director, receives the
needed supervision to move supervisees towards increasingly effective client support, and to
strengthen the profession of social work (McDonald, 20162306 [thesis review]). Since
supervision in child welfare is connected to the work done with children and families, I hope
that my thesis will be able to provide some information that will help in the supervision
processes that will benefit the outcomes for children involved in the child welfare system.

65
Chapter Four: Findings
"Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve
greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them" (Shakespeare,
Act II, Scene V, as documented by Alchin, 2012).
The Plan of the Study
I completed a search of 102 different records regarding supervision in social services
with particular attention to supervision in social work including: essays, interviews, journals,
reviews and texts. As well, I had a colleague interview me as a social work supervisor and
used my personal journals to extract data. The data collected from my discussions with
colleagues, journaling, personal interview, and literature review converged at three different
junctures: 1. Impacts on internal clients including burnout, concerns about supervision by the
supervisee and supervisor, job satisfaction and length of employment; 2. Influences on
external clients encompassing connection with the agency and outcomes for the client, length
of participation with agency, and satisfaction with involvement of the organization; 3. Effects
on the organization comprising of effectiveness in meeting its mandate, human services,
organizational intelligence, and public perception.
Impacts on internal clients.
As all social workers practising in an agency are internal clients to that agency, it is
important to understand the impacts that administrative and educative supervision can have
on us. Riolli and Savicki (2006) explore how supervision, among other things, influences the
practitioner experiencing stressful events: organizational change, for instance, that happens in
every human service organization, and how that change correlates with burnout.

66
Burnout.
When I first started in the field of child welfare, I thought that the burnout rate would
not be that high. What I found was many people left on sick leave first and then many just
left for other social work jobs. It was interesting to me that when people left they were
sometimes labelled by those who stayed as not tough enough (Calvert, 20101412 [personal
journal]). There were an increasing number of sick leaves when major changes or staffing
shortages happened in MCFD. There was a white paper that came out internally to direct
supervisors to manage social workers every minute of the day (Calvert, 20111509 [personal
journal]). This was yet one more administrative task that in turn took away more of the time
for educative supervision.
Over the 12 years I worked with MCFD the change was constant: new directives, new
formats, new computer databases, new measures, and yet the work of child welfare had to go
on. I reviewed my journal and found that in six years as a supervisor in an office of
approximately 20 social workers and three supervisors, I hired, or was a part of hiring, 15
new social workers. At times the office had more new social workers than senior
practitioners to train the new. There was a tremendous amount of turnover and burnout of
frontline staff. The focus seemed to be on trying to get through the change as an organization,
with administrative supervision being prominently carried out with very little educative
supervision.
As well, there were times while I was supervising at MCFD where pressures to
downsize the work force to cut overall costs, by not hiring enough staff to complete the work,
increased the staff burnout. My supervisor colleague expressed that she felt that all she was
doing was administrating: “I am not doing some of the important things for my staff

67
anymore” (Calvert, 20101220 [personal journal], meaning that she was not able to be there in
an educative capacity for her staff. I found that many times, while going through the staffing
changes, there appeared to only be time for administrative tasks. The time for education was
taken up, by me as a supervisor trying to learn the new forms, procedures, tools, and myriad
of other issues that went along with the change processes that were happening within MCFD.
I remember going for a walk with a manager when I was a new social worker, and
him telling me and another colleague that off the record, the organization knew that staffing
levels were too low for the amount of work that needed to be done. He referenced studies
done by the National Associations for Social Work in Canada and the United States that
spoke to 15-18 cases being the appropriate case load sizes for child welfare. Tittle (2002)
explains:
the per caseworker caseload size for family foster care should be between 12 and 15
children, depending upon the level of service required for each child. Factors to be
considered in determining appropriate caseload size include: the complexity of the
needs of the child and family, the level of competency of the worker, the functions
assigned and the time required for activities related to the case, and the geographic
area served. (p. 5)
Though there were times that caseloads were within this mandate, these were few and far
between. Caseload sizes were usually smaller for most beginning practitioners. However,
over six months, the caseload sizes ramped up to well over 25 and then over the next six
months could be as high as 40.
At this particular time I was outraged that the organization that hired me knew this
and was yet not being responsible. I thought it was unconscionable to allow the workers to

68
drown like we were at that time. As I reflect on this, I feel sad for the families who did not
experience good practice. How could they when the social worker is being drowned in their
work? The really great administrators get by, but the families suffer through a practise that is
basically managing a fire that can never be put out. A picture comes to mind of a fire-pit with
social workers trying to put out the flames by silently crying over the fire. I have even seen
caseloads as high as 70+ cases. The highest caseloads are as rare as the caseloads that are 1215 in size. I found that as I supervised new social workers that had caseloads within these
guidelines of size, they usually were very successful and discussed feelings of success and
accomplishment. They also voiced feelings of guilt as it appeared to them that their
colleagues were struggling and they wanted to do more.
As I was forced to administer and increase the caseloads, I found that there was less
happiness and satisfaction with the job. I was not happy as a supervisor having to assign
more work. I was outraged that there was not enough staff to do the work. I had a director
with the audacity to come to our office and tell me and my staff that we were well within the
guidelines the ministry placed, when each of my staff had forty plus cases. I remember sitting
there thinking you have to be crazy and so out of touch to believe that good work can be
done with this many files. My supervisor colleagues and I were told in private meetings by
the director that we had to drink the organizational Kool-Aid and sell it to the staff. The
director and manager lost my respect. I suppose I also lost some self-respect, because I then
took that Kool-Aid and drank the bitter cup and told the staff in individual supervision and
team meetings that we would get through this and this is normal. Around the time of the end
of my second course for my Master of Social Work (April 2011), I stopped drinking the

69
Kool-Aid, and started to become disgusted about the situation. I then saw the toxicity for
what it was and had to seriously change my practise as a social worker.
A study “found that stressors such as lack of resources and day-to-day hassles,
including dealing with administration, are viewed as less stressful if supervisory practices
were perceived as more supportive” (Snelgrove and Phil as cited in Riolli & Savicki, 2006, p.
355). As more administrative work needed to be done with social workers with high
caseloads, there was less time for me to give clinical or educative supervision. Thus, if there
is less time to give that clinical type supervision that will educate and develop the
practitioner’s ability to deal with change, there is more stress, which also correlates to
increase of burnout (Newell & MacNeil, 2010; Smullens, 2012). Most of the time, I was an
administrator trying to ensure that all of my staff was taking care of the business processes,
and due to workload and number of cases, I had little to no time to do the needed educative
supervision. So even though I as a supervisor knew that I should be providing educative
supervision, most of the time I found that one does not have the time (Erera & Lazar, 1994a;
Noble & Irwin, 2009).
I worked in a region of MCFD as a new social worker that very much pushed the
importance of clinical supervision, and created an internal document that all supervisors were
to use as a guide, though the type of supervision I received was mostly focused on
administrative tasks. I remember asking to talk about some of the issues I was experiencing
and my supervisor telling me I just had to toughen up. She explained that if I did not do so I
would not last in the profession. I thought, I cannot be weak, I must be tough. I am not going
to be like the weak ones that burnout. I was not going to face that shame. When I reflect back
on this today, I think what a sick message to give new social workers. I remember as a new

70
supervisor I moved to a new region where this emphasis on educative supervision was not in
place. I was receiving the same type of supervision, just without the hypocritical backdrop.
So I introduced the supervision document to the new region through my supervisor, and it
was adopted with some minor changes. However, I found that a document in and of itself
does not create culture or space for educative supervision. I foolishly thought that the
introduction of the document might equate to more supervisors. It did not and instead there
was this new demand by paper only that clinical supervision take place; even though the
leadership team knew there were not proper resources to carry it out. I was upset with this
and discussed this with my supervisor when the directive first came out in the region.
Another cause of burnout can be an acute event happening, such as: a client
physically or verbally attacking a worker, death of a client or co-worker, organizational audit
of work, media attention, or other such factors. All of these happened to me in my career as a
social worker; however, only one really pushed me to the area where I was burnt out. I
recalled in my interview:
I had a really bad experience with a child death. I didn't get any clinical support, it
was all administrative. [The manager asked] Did you do this? Where [is] our
liabilities? I mean everything came out in the end, fine. But, I was devastated at my
first child death. I was just destroyed. Mostly emotionally destroyed and I didn't
really recover from that for about a year and what happened to me is after three
months … the trauma kept building inside and I just crashed. (Winofsky & Calvert,
2012, p. 6)
The most difficult part about the burnout I experienced was I had no educative supervision
after the death of the child. It was all administrative, to the point that the director of child

71
welfare in the area I worked, knew about the death in the morning and never bothered to call
me. It was me, phoning my manager when the coroner came into my office, in the late
afternoon, to notify me that a child had died on one of my staff’s caseload. After the coroner
left my office, I remember falling to my knees and crying while leaning on my desk. I was
afraid I had missed something to cause a child’s death. I was afraid I would be fired and not
able to support my family. I did not know who to trust with these fears. I did not know who
to reach out to for guidance. It was crushing. I was upset that the director never called me.
The shear absurdity of the situation still baffles me. There was no educative supervision to
guide me through this situation, to be able to move through a significant event like this. This
event and my lack of guidance was a leading cause of me burning out. This burnout was
preventable. Through my observation, after burning out, my experience led me to distrust
managers in the organization. My experience follows:
That’s all they wanted to hear, was that it was ‘your’ fault, you crashed, this is your
fault that things aren’t going well and you need to fix it! [My manager said], “If you
get through this you can get through anything!” Sure, if you get through that, you can
get through anything, because you have not supported me in any way! And when I
had somebody … come into my office and yell at me saying that I needed to, “shape
up or ship out. It was one of the managers”, I said, “look, get out of my office. I don’t
want this kind of support, this isn’t support. I am supposed to be getting support from
you?” I said, “I would never treat my staff like this and here you are treating me like
this”. So they stopped. (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012, p. 6)
In all of the experience as a supervisor, I was never educated on how to deal with child
deaths from an internal supervisor. Nor did the organization ever take any responsibility for

72
any of the supervisors and social workers I watched burnout from secondary traumatic stress
(STS) (Bell, Kulkarni, & Dalton, 2003; Meyers & Cornille, 2002; Nelson-Gardell & Harris,
2003). There were many. Some recovered and others did not. I went to an outside source to
get proper educative supervision with regards to situations of STS I experienced. Even going
to outside sources did not fix the frustration I had that MCFD refused to deal with this issue
in a pragmatic way. Bride and Jones (2006) explain that to not give proper clinical
supervision to supervisee’s who have experienced STS leads to destructive behaviours and
burnout of the employee. If an organization does not address these compounding factors this
becomes an egregious violation of an organizations obligation to provide safe working
conditions for an employee. Over all, “the organization must recognize secondary traumatic
stress as a natural consequence of providing services to traumatized [external] clients, rather
than as a deficiency on the part of the worker” (Bride & Jones, 2006, p. 39). If an
organization fails to do so, supervision is not given the time required to provide educative
supervision for the supervisees. Bride and Jones also explain that supervisors, who followed
up the educative supervision with actions, rather than just being verbally clinical, reduced the
impact of STS on their staff. I decided that I would always ensure that I had the clinical
support I needed – that not having clinical support was out of the question. If the
organization was not providing it, I would get it myself. As I reviewed the literature, it was
clear that both administrative and educational functions, when practiced, can result in good
outcomes for internal and external clients (Bruce & Austin, 2000; Ezera & Lazar, 1994a;
Kadushin, 1992; Smith, 2005; Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006). For me, I had better outcomes
when I received educative supervision and I believe that my staff had better supervision
when I provided educative supervision – this all leads to better outcomes for all clients.

73
Concerns about the supervision by the supervisee and supervisor.
Many social workers have concerns about those that are supervising them, and if they
will experience the needed levels of administrative and educative supervision. I found that
supervisors also run into issues discussed in the literature review: such as ableism, ethical
issues, power imbalances, racism and sexism.
In working with a staff member who had a disability, I found that I could not always
give the educative supervision that the staff member needed. They were a new child
protection worker and experienced some of the same issues in the field as other staff.
However, they also experienced different issues that as an administrator, I was not able to
give guidance. Thus, the staff member became more and more frustrated with the issues and
eventually left the ministry. I remember being very frustrated with the situation. I asked for
support and was given none by my supervisor. The staff member struggled because they
were treated just like everyone else and there were no accommodations made. Nor did I
really understand what accommodations needed to be made for the employee’s success. I felt
helpless, just watching the staff member go through the situations they went through.
Until the administrative supervisor has an intimate understanding on a particular
ableism dynamic that an employee may be experiencing, it may be better for that supervisee
to receive educative supervision from one who can guide the employee up to and through the
issues one may face when confronted with ableism. As well, the supervisor should become
educated with regards to the specific issues the supervisee is facing (Olkin & Pledger, 2003;
Reid & Knight, 2006). I was not able to receive education around the disability so was not
able to give proper supervision, which resulted in the person leaving. I never discussed in
supervision my feelings of inadequacy; as here I was a supervisor with MCFD, servicing

74
clients, some of whom are struggling with the same issues surrounding ableism as my staff
member, and I could not even help my staff member. How could I really teach my staff or
train my staff to give appropriate service, when I could not even help one of our own?
Another finding is that ethical dilemmas can also impact the level of trust one has in
their organization. My colleague received a deserved promotion and became responsible for
an audit her last three years of work for the same unit she was supervising (she was auditing
her own work), as well as my unit. When the audit was being done, I brought forward my
objection and the obvious ethical dilemma. Not only had my supervisor, but my supervisor’s
supervisor, stated they had no issue with this and that I should not worry about it. I remember
being very upset that as social workers they were just pushing this issue aside. The questions
I had were many: with such a clear ethical issue present, what else were they not worried
about? Could I trust them? Should I trust them? Can I trust the organization? I know that I
never trusted my supervisor or their supervisor from that moment on. I want to note that my
unit passed the audit and actually did very well. As well, my colleague was an excellent
supervisor and her team’s work really was not in question. However, the optic was bad, and
left many questioning the audit.
The first time I was introduced to budget cuts I was a social worker who had worked
for MCFD for two years. I was working in southeastern British Columbia (BC) and I
remember the manager coming to my office and explaining to me that I may be cut.
However, he explained that he would do everything in his power to try and not have that
happen. There were several of us in this position. The previous year, I had relocated to this
part of BC with my spouse and our two very young children. I had a new mortgage and
remember thinking the world was crashing down around me. I needed to talk to somebody

75
about the stress this caused in my life, to discuss with someone about how this was affecting
me. I remember sitting in my supervisor’s office and hearing the words “do not worry about
this Adam, they never actually lay anyone off” (Calvert, 20020412 [personal journal]). This
was all the guidance given. With the possible staff cuts, there were hiring freezes. We already
had two positions in a small office that had not been hired. We had to manage large caseloads
with less staff. At the time, other staff relocated and changed professions, which allowed me
to stay.
It was at this time that I experienced a very traumatic event while working with a
family. The father tried physically attacking me because I would not remove a child from his
partner; instead I made a safety plan. It was an after-hours callout, I had two years of
experience and the man was very intoxicated with crystal meth. I remember him running at
me with rage in his eyes, screaming, I am going to kill you! I am going to kill you and your
family! The only thing that stopped him from attacking me was the police officer who
tackled him. His son (14 years old) was with him and started kicking the police officer. I just
remember everything slowing down. I had a baby in one arm and the room filled with pepper
spray, then the room flooded with police. I ran out of the home with the child and was
shaking. At that moment I was shaking, then went numb and called the after-hours support
line. I had the immediate support of an after-hours supervisor by phone. I finished the safety
planning and sent mom, child and a sober relative on their way. The police brought out the
man who was still telling me he was going to kill me and my family.
My supervisor did not provide clinical support to me; they were very focused on the
administration of the office and the child welfare work that needed to be done. The kind of
supervision I received was to tell me stories of similar events, and telling me I would be fine

76
in a few days. As well, the ministry would get a restraining order on the man. I recorded:
“today I was scanning a parking lot like a secret service agent, getting my children and wife
into the car, then I stopped and thought, what in the hell am I doing” (Calvert, 20021512
[personal journal]). Here I was being hypervigilant because I subconsciously thought that this
man was going to come and kill me and my family. I know what I was thinking because I
accessed counselling services myself. The services were available through the Public
Service. I was so upset that my supervisor never referred me; the whole first appointment
was about me being upset with the ministry’s lack of clinical guidance. I remember the
counsellor saying something along the lines of, maybe you want to find a new profession; it
does not sound very healthy there.
Ten years later as a supervisor I was faced with similar issues that my manager had
discussed with me. I had to discuss with new staff the possibilities of cuts, and that we would
not be able to hire for vacant positions. Even with the promises I made to myself to always
make sure I had time to give my staff the clinical supervision they needed, I found myself
directing them to external supervision through Family Assistance Programs (FAP) (Winofsky
& Calvert, 2012). I was stuck in the ethical dilemma at the time, whether to take the time
needed to properly supervise the staff with clinical supervision, and let the administrative
supervision lapse. The lapse would affect the external clients needing service and it would
probably affect my employment if any issues arose. I felt entrapped by the ministry. With
staff stressed and traumatized from possible layoffs, the external clients suffered due to staff
making administrative errors in service. The administrative errors impacted the rest of the
staff, as well as my possible employment, if anything major arose (Calvert, 20112704
[personal journal]).

77
The staff started to turn on each other and fight amongst each other. This was an
office- wide phenomenon. As supervisors, my colleagues and I started turning on one
another, we were not as congenial with each other. We requested that our supervisor come
down to help us. Instead they sent a middle person to try to help us. I remember all three of
us as team leaders became very upset with this and this actually banded us together. My
thinking at the time was if my supervisor was not going to help us then we needed to help
ourselves. So we as supervisors started to meet together regularly.
I did not have the time that was needed to give my staff the educative supervision that
would allow them a smoother ride on the very up and down rollercoaster of emotions one can
face at a time of change. My solution at the time was to direct staff to FAP for direction.
Csiernik and Csiernik (2012) state that FAPs, who are private contractors, is one way
government organizations increase or keep employees fit, healthy, and able to cope with
personal problems. Csiernik and Csiernik (2012) believe that it is very important to have
FAPs in place as an effective means to promote health in the work place. My experience with
MCFD was clear: that the executives and managers were turning to FAPs more and more to
deal with the emotional and physical stress of their employees. For me, this was pushing
employees to outside educative supervision, while I maintained the administrative
supervision. At the time, I did not have the knowledge, nor did I have the strength to
challenge the institution. I felt trapped between good ethics and no support from the agency. I
still felt responsibility for my staff and knew that some would be going through enormous
stress. I again felt helpless and did not know where to turn for real support. One of the team
leader colleagues would always go behind my back and talk about me with my supervisor. I
felt alone in a very difficult position.

78
Job Satisfaction.
As a supervisor with MCFD, I was part of many exit interviews, including my own.
One of the main recurring themes was how supervision impacted job satisfaction: when the
staff member was receiving administrative and educative or clinical supervision on a regular
basis, that staff member stayed longer with the ministry. However, if the clinical supervision
was absent the staff member was not as satisfied with the job and left sooner. The reason I
left southeastern British Columbia was not the supervision. We had relatively smaller
caseloads at the time and the last supervisor I had:
Was an amazing supervisor. He made sure that all pieces were done; he ensured the
clinical pieces were done and all the administrative pieces were done. He had a good
balance: life, family, work. I said to myself, ‘I haven't seen supervisors like this yet
and I'm going to be that way. That is how I want to supervise, I want to move out of
the everyday working, I want to be like him. (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012, p. 4)
Collins-Camargo, Sullivan, Washeck, and Sundet (2009), while studying the
revamping of social work supervision in the state of Missouri of the United States, found that
many studies support supervision being highly correlated with job satisfaction and the length
of stay at an institution:
Using structural equation modeling, Landsman (2001) found that that supervisory
support was a positive correlate of job satisfaction, which, in turn, was linked to
occupational and organizational commitment and intent to remain employed in child
welfare. Organizational commitment was in turn the strongest predictor of intent to
stay in the child welfare agency. Similarly, Ellett, Ellett, and Rugutt (2003) found
professional support and the quality of supervision and leadership to be positively

79
correlated with [intent to remain employed] IRE. Three dimensions of general job
satisfaction (organizational structure, client responsibilities, and co-worker/supervisor
relations) were also positively correlated with the IRE measure. Westbrook (2006)
showed that the strongest single organizational culture correlate of IRE was a
measure of supervisory support followed closely by administrative support and
organizational ethos. Yankeelov et al. (2009) found that child welfare workers who
felt attached to their supervisors and received guidance from them were more likely
to remain with the agency. These related findings suggest that the initiative described
herein is grounded theoretically and empirically. (p. 102)
The connection between job satisfaction and both administrative and educative supervision
shows the need to have both types of supervision available to the staff of the organization. If
there is something that is such a predicator to staying or leaving a human service
organization, an organization may want to ensure they pay attention to supervision within it. I
find that some effort is put forward into training new supervisors: I received one week of
training and a second week two years later (Calvert, 20120505 [personal journal]). However,
there was a strong need for a great deal more training on how to carry out the clinical or
educative pieces of supervision. I found that I eventually left child welfare for what I hoped
would be a place where I would get better supervision. I left as I gained more understanding
of the importance of educative supervision and the lack of this type of supervision; both that I
was able to give, and that which I received. Bride and Jones (2006) explain that the
supervisee who receives higher quality supervision from a supervisor will be less stressed,
more connected to the supervisor, and to the organization.

80
As I started taking courses and learning outside of the organization I started to see
how sick the situation was inside of the organization. There were managers and directors
who knew that MCFD was understaffed and would express to the supervisors that the
message to the staff was everything is okay; caseloads of 35-45 were the norm and you just
had to be able to do the work. If you could not manage an unmanageable caseload, then you
would be dealt with administratively. Evidence secured through your supervision meetings
could show that you could not manage the caseload and you as the employee may be fired. It
felt that free overtime was required, because MCFD can only pay for limited overtime and
clients needed service. MCFD knows the caseload is unmanageable within the given hours,
but you have to manage it. As a supervisor I could not conscionably continue with the
message. I was ashamed that I had let myself let go of the ethics of social work and had
rationalized my way through it.
Mullaly (2007) discusses social work practise being political and expresses the need
for social workers to understand the term “personal is political” (p. 155). Mullaly (2007) goes
on to say that all social work practise has some form of political impact. After I left MCFD,
many social workers and supervisors approached me and asked if it was better on the outside.
I cannot answer with a yes or no. What I can say is that one can find educative supervision
outside the organization. If the organization is not providing what is needed to survive and
work well within some of the stressful environments social workers can work, then one must
go out and get the needed supervision or risk not being able to work in the field due to STS.
Influences on external clients encompassing.
As members of a profession that work with those who are the most vulnerable in
society, let us not be mistaken, we influence the lives of those we serve (Calvert, 20110707

81
[personal journal]). There are many times that one uses judgement to decide whether to
return a child to parents, to keep a person displaying difficult behaviours in a shelter, to try to
reach out to the external client that just seems unreachable for a myriad of possible reasons;
to meet with someone who has been violent to others in the past, or to engage with a
community in change processes. How much does our supervision impact the service quality
to the external client? I found I was more centred as a front line worker, a team leader, and a
manager, and able to give better service to external clients when I received administrative
and clinical supervision. At times I received those together from the same supervisor or
sometimes I would have to find clinical supervision from an outside source. Clients appear to
benefit from the supervision one receives as a social worker (Collins-Camargo, 2006;
Collins-Camargo et al., 2009; Mullaly, 1993)
Connection with the agency and outcomes for the client.
When I was working as a frontline child welfare worker, I remember a specific series
of events that taught me the importance of an external client connecting to the agency, and
how different the client’s experience was depending on the connection the client made. I first
met this client (I use the pseudonym of Susan), as an intake worker while working with
MCFD in the West Kootenays of British Columbia. Susan was enmeshed with the local drug
scene and had negative interactions with MCFD and me as a social worker. The supervision
that I received was from an administrative context and very Eurocentric in origin, Susan had
her child removed from her care and was not allowed to interact with the office without a
lawyer present. The office was all locked down and no person could interact with social
workers inside the office area, only in dual entrance rooms. Later in the year, I was seconded
to work with a new aboriginal child welfare agency. I remember walking into the agency and

82
the first thing I thought was there are no walls. The clients and staff were all interacting in
the agency. There were office spaces, but everyone was all together. Zapf (2009) discusses
the importance of not only the social environment, but the need for exploration of the
physical environment, and how it impacts the social work one does. The supervision I
received was not only from my formal supervisor, but also group supervision from elders of
the community, support workers who were also members of the community, and at times,
chief and council members. It was decided that instead of taking a path of separating Susan
from her child that the agency would try to engage and bring Susan to the agency. As the
case manager, I would no longer pursue permanent orders of guardianship.
Susan was invited by the family support workers to participate in making a dress with
her child, for her child to participate in a powwow, and then invited to connect with the
agency in different ways. Susan was able to not only connect with elders of the community
(her cultural guides), and her child, but also to me, as a more aware culturally guided social
worker, inside an agency that was there to reconnect her with her child and her culture. The
experience was very different and allowed for the successful reconnection of mother and
child. How did this happen? I was given counsel from the elders of the community who came
and visited the agency frequently; the agency being in the Nation’s territory. The elders
taught me and gave me clinical supervision about family, culture and language. My child
welfare supervisor placed high importance on clinical supervision and used group
supervision with the elders of the community. This allowed me to understand culture in a
different way. This directly affected Susan’s relationship with me and the child welfare
agency. This also directly impacted my feeling about the practise of social work. I was proud
of the work I was doing and the way I was doing it. I felt connected to my supervisor and the

83
people of the Nation. I took real interest in their lives, language and culture. It was the most
rewarding feeling. As well, I was connected with my supervisor and respected the work of
supervision. It made me want to become a supervisor in child welfare. It was that impactful.
Yet, this was one of the only times I experienced social work practised and supported in this
way.
Length of participation with the agency and satisfaction with involvement.
Before the transfer of Susan and her child to the Aboriginal Agency, Susan’s child
was being prepared for permanent custody (continuing custody order) with MCFD. This
would be a very long form of participation with a child welfare agency. I was
administratively doing everything I was supposed to and my supervisor was being an
excellent administrative supervisor, ensuring I had completed all the right reports and court
documents. With regards to educative supervision, I received little to none. I was not
educated or clinically made aware of the issues that could have changed the outcome for
these clients. I was a new social worker and thought I was doing everything right. I really
thought I was making the right choices as to how to service this client. I was not.
I remember my supervisor and the supervisor of the agency sat me down in my
supervisor’s office and told me I was being transferred under secondment to the Aboriginal
agency. I remember fearing this and thinking this is going to be horrible; how can I challenge
this? All the other social workers that were left behind in the office gave their real
condolences and I bought into this as being a bad idea. I was afraid of change. Here I was a
social worker afraid of the forthcoming change. Circumstances were to prove me wrong.
With my move and the file going to a new team, I was given administrative and educative
supervision as described in the last section. Several months after the transfer the court action

84
was changed and Susan’s child went home, as the risks were addressed differently by me,
due to the educative supervision I received. Susan and her child were more firmly connected
with the elders of the community and became strong supports for others going through
similar issues.
The supervision that I received from my supervisor and the “Elders Advisory
Council” (Calvert, 20042704 [personal journal]) allowed me to view issues with different
eyes and provide different services to clients. The supervision was steeped in education,
balanced with strong supervision from my direct supervisor, from the team I worked with at
the agency, and from the elders of community in which I worked. I was able to be more
competent as a social worker and everyone in the community knew that I was receiving
supervision from community members, which built trust in the work I did with the elders of
the community. Collins-Camargo (2006) express the importance of strong educative
supervision, explaining that if one receives such, external clients receive better services from
social workers who receive both administrative and educative supervision, with strong focus
on the educative side. There were some positive outcomes that showed “change in
supervisory practice” (Collins-Camargo, 2006, p. 7) impacts intervention; however, CollinsCamargo goes on to say, a more longitudinal study would be beneficial. De Boer and Coady
(2007) underline the importance for proper educative supervision, examining how strengthbased approaches to social work improves the satisfaction clients have with agency
interaction, while the agency is still able to meet mandates with the changed approaches to
supervision.
Not only had I, as a frontline social worker, received supervision, but my supervisor
received the same type of supervision from the agency and an “Elders Advisory Council”

85
(Calvert, 20042704 [personal journal]). The Elders Advisory Council is created by the
nations serviced by the agency. The elders are people in the community who are looked to by
community members for guidance, knowledge and wisdom regarding the paths that should
be followed by the community and individuals. My supervisor explained that this was one of
the first times he received this type of clinical supervision from a group of people, whose
families were impacted by child welfare (Calvert, 20042704 [personal journal]). Here I had
elders whom the community trusted providing me, an agency worker, with guidance as how
to engage their community. I was an outsider receiving educative supervision from the
agency and from the community. This simple concept – to allow community to have some
type of review and supervision of the work that is being completed in an agency, also allows
for empowerment of the: agency, client, community, family, and social worker – all with
shorter involvement for the agency (Blackstock & Trocme, 2005). Blackstock and Trocme
(2005) explain that “resilient Aboriginal communities provide the best chance for resilient,
safe and well Aboriginal children, young people and families” (p. 30). It was one of the most
wonderful times in my career in child welfare, as I received excellent supervision from my
supervisor and the community, blending administrative and educational supervision that
helped me grow as a professional in ways that I could not otherwise have done.
Effects on the organization.
Large human service organizations, like MCFD, servicing external and internal
clients have their mandates established for them through statutes of the provincial and federal
governments; or if they are not-for-profit, by their boards. Each usually establishes a set of
documents, outlining a mission statement, values, policies and procedures – all dictating how
the members of the organization interact with external and internal clients (George &

86
Wilding, 1989; Grant & Mills, 2006; Hasenfeld, 992; McKenzie & Wharf, 2010). MCFD has
established policies and procedures, and has changed how they address certain policies and
procedures over the years. From being very prescriptive, with manuals guiding every part of
practice, to allowing more freedom for the professional to make decisions; swinging back
and forth between the two ends of this pendulum (Foster & Warf, 2007; Calvert, 2014). This
also includes the training MCFD provides for supervisors, as noted in Blackman and Schmidt
(2013):
Participants in the second focus group identified the need for a consistent professional
development program for supervisors that did not change from year to year. One
participant found that because the courses differ from year to year, “it tends to get a
bit confusing.” They recommended “one focused program” that everyone could
attend. (p. 98)
My experience in the organization was that of constant change. From one year to the next
policies and practices were changing. One example was that of supervision training. I was
sent to receive training in 2005 on the “Tony Morrison” style of supervision. The prior year
MCFD had spent a good deal of money and had Tony Morrison come from England to train
part of the organization on his style of supervision (Foster & Warf, 2007). It was touted as
the new way to supervise. Approximately three years later this form of supervision had been
pushed to the side with a different emphasis on clinical supervision put in place. One year
later training on administrative supervision was heralded by the Public Service Agency of
British Columbia to be the answer to MCFD’s supervision issues (Calvert, 20060812
[personal journal]). I believe the thinking by the Public Service, was if I could be a better

87
administrator, I would be a better social work supervisor, the staff would be better workers,
and able to deal with the enormous workload.
So, all of my supervisor colleagues and I were sent off to more, different, supervisory
training. I soon found out that the training actually made me as a supervisor focus more on
the administrative issues while my practise did not appear to change. Though I as a
supervisor really wanted to establish better educative supervision I had previously learned in
past years of training, my administrative tasks always seemed to occupy the space and time
of educative supervision. Perhaps this was due to supervising 10 staff or perhaps it was due
to my inability to manage my staff properly. I to this day do not have the answer, though I
tend to lean towards the self-serving, and state it had to be too many administrative demands
being placed on a supervisor. I was so frustrated with the new load placed on me as a
supervisor. I expressed this at Team Leader meeting with managers and directors. Many
other also expressed the same feelings. I was so upset that I had even less time to spend
giving clinical supervision to my staff.
British Columbia’s Representative for Children and Youth (2015) explains the need
for MCFD to have more staff to respond to client needs:
Without additional funds, the ministry has limited capacity to make the child-serving
system more responsive to the needs of the children and families it serves.
Government as a whole must make a much more sustained and deeper commitment to
improve MCFD’s staffing situation and thereby ensure adequate child safety services
are available. (p. 43)
There appears to be an identified need for more staff to oversee the child welfare system of
British Columbia and yet the government of British Columbia still has not increased funding

88
to MCFD to allow for staffing to reach the levels seen in 2002 (British Columbia
Representative for Child and Youth, 2015). As discussed with fewer supervisors doing the
work However, this staffing element may never be addressed due to the need for the elite to
continue to have power (Freire, 2000). I am still disappointed that with all of the talk and
reports that have been done that nothing is really being done. Staff members keep leaving at
a high rate and MCFD leadership shrugs their shoulders saying we do not know what to do.
We are doing all that we can. They know they are not and are not advocating for more fulltime staff for fear of losing their jobs. It is my frustrated experience to read research that
points to answers (review this thesis), and yet there appears to be a blind eye turned to
academies of learning and the research produced, even by their own staff (Blackman &
Schmidt, 2013).
Effectiveness in meeting mandates.
Blackman and Schmidt (2013) explain that, “leadership and supervision are important
elements in the effective delivery of social work services (Frey, LeBeau, Kindler, Behan,
Morales, & Freundlich, 2012)” as cited on p. 89). British Columbia’s Representative of
Children and Youth (2015) reports that MCFD is not fully meeting its mandate due to budget
issues and staff shortages. One can argue that there is an urgent need for more supervisors at
all levels of the organization. Administrative and educative supervisory functions help staff
members connect with the organization and provide the needed support to frontline staff,
supervisors, managers, and directors to meet the organizations mandate, as well as, to better
serve clients (Baker, 2003; Bogo and McKnight, 2005; Hung, 2010; Iannello, 1992,
Kadushin, 1992; Tsui, 2005). Blackman and Schmidt (2013) write that supervisors in a child
protection setting feel they would benefit from better supervision from their supervisors.

89
Blackman and Schmidt find that MCFD appears to be floundering at providing the proper
supports and mandate to their supervisors regarding what supervision entails, and how it
should be provided. I am confused as to how an organization can profess they are practicing
ethically – that when an organization knows what kinds of supervision staff need and they do
not provide it. How is that ethical?
Human resources
Human resources are needed to complete the difficult work of child welfare.
However, MCFD has issues with keeping staff; so much so, that it impacts research:
The high turnover in the region also means that many workers have less than two
years of work experience and may not be as inclined to complete a survey
questionnaire given that they are still trying to become proficient in the work.
(Blackman & Schmidt, 2013, p. 94)
Blackman and Schmidt (2013) also received data to show “clinical supervision and problem
solving/judgment clearly emerged as the most important competencies that front-line workers
valued and sought in a supervisor” (Blackman & Schmidt, 2013, p. 94). However, Blackman
and Schmidt (2013) also found that supervisors and managers focused on administrative
tasks and placed less importance on clinical supervision.
There appears to be some kind of disconnection between what is needed and desired
by those who are being supervised and what is provided or heralded by the organization. This
impacts human resources in a number of ways: cost of replacing and retraining staff, energy
of workers and supervisors spent training new staff, less time for servicing clients, and
differing forms of cyclical damage to the organization (see Figure 3.) related to the cost and
energy of wearing out the human resources of the organization (Carpenter, Webb & Bostock,

90
2013). This disconnect can end in dissatisfaction with the work and turnover of staff
(Broyles, Lutcher, & Robertson, 2004). I am confused how there are studies like the ones
above and MCFD still does not respond by hiring almost double the staff they have to
provide better outcomes for children and families; that the government is not held
accountable for their lack of response to properly fund MCFD. Anything less, I would say is
criminal, and some of the child deaths and maltreatment must fall on the heads of the leaders
if the evidence is clear.
Organizational intelligence
One report concerning MCFD outlines the difficulty within the organization in
regards to organizational intelligence pertaining to administrative and educative supervision:
Where front-line workers identified clinical supervision skills as the most important
competency, supervisors and managers did not identify this as clearly as the front-line
workers. This may represent the influence of the current child welfare environment,
in which workload management and accountability are increasingly important for
supervisors and managers. (Blackman & Schmidt, 2013, p. 101)
Supervisors and managers are given their mandates about workload management and
accountability from the organization. One explanation of this is that the top of the
organization is disconnected from the bottom, and the organizational intelligence is not being
driven by what is needed by the organization itself, but driven by other outside factors
(Bishop, 2005; George & Wilding, 1989; Hasenfeld, 1992; Noble & Irwin, 2009; Tang &
Peters, 2006). As a frontline worker and a supervisor, I experienced being supervised by
supervisors who were not focused on what was needed by me as a supervisee. I needed

91
Figure 3. The Cycle Resulting From Administrative Focus
Social Workers Need
Administrative and
Educative Supervision

Organization Focuses Energy
on Administrative Tasks of
Training New Hires

Organization Uses
Resources to Hire New
Social Workers

Supervisors Focus on
Administrative Supervision

Social Workers Become
Frustrated, Burnout, and
Leave

clinical or educative supervision, but it appeared that they were motivated instead by the
administrative mandate of the organization. With such focus on the administrative portion of
supervision, the human resources of the organization are not taken care of, and the
organization is less likely to meet its’ mandate due to staff being burnt out or not feeling
supported (Riolli & Savicki, 2006; Smullens, 2012; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis 2007). As
well, without the proper attention to human resources by the BC Provincial Government, it
does not matter how much focus is being put on administrative tasks – there is just too much
to do for the few (British Columbia’s Representative for Children and Youth, 2015). The
difficulty with many large human service organizations is the lack of professionalism and
organizational intelligence. This stems from a lack of educative supervision, where

92
knowledge and skills are taught and conveyed from supervisor to supervisee as well as from
supervisee to supervisor (Kadushin, 1985; Munson, 1983; as cited in Erera & Lazar, 1994). It
was expressed in an interview:
So we have the deputy minister not getting any supervision because he's the
Leader…. We have assistant deputy ministers who don't get really good clinical
supervision and I’m talking clinical, not administrative, or at least that's the view
from the bottom because somewhere it's broken. I believe it's broken all the way
through, maybe it isn’t, but then we have those not giving the executive directors of
service good supervision. The assistant deputy minister is not giving executive
directors of service good clinical supervision. Not doing 360 degree appraisals,
saying, “how is this person behaving towards you, how are they doing in the
community?” There's nothing, no, just a very strict bureaucratic hierarchical
situation. Then we have ‘the EDS’ not giving clinical supervision to the Community
Services Managers; community services managers don’t give good clinical
supervision to the team leaders – they don’t even know what it is, most of them.
(Winofsky & Calvert, 2012, pp. 18-19)
Instead there is a focus on ensuring the organization is seen as competent, by focusing
supervisors on administrative supervision to ensure that tasks are completed and statistics can
be measured. The organization can point to families being served, files up to date, how many
children are in care, to show the external observers from the larger society that the
organization is meeting some kind of standard. The interesting part about this for me is the
numbers and cases that are reported to the outside are Trojan Horses [emphasis added]: the
numbers are empty of real meaningful work with clients, as the face to face work with clients

93
was rarely measured. There would be blitzes to get the work done and the files made ready.
Moreover, the direct practice with the clients, children and families was put on hold. This
does not mean that good work was not done, it was and is. Administrative supervision can
create a sickness in an organization when it becomes the tool to enforce mandates and takes
away from face to face client work. Many times, I experienced a focus on this lack versus
looking at the good work that was done, there was focus on what is not done, or what should
have been. This is very much following a deficit model; that there is some perfect model or
number that one should be working towards. The administrative model of supervision can be
very much connected with a deficit model (Adams & Balfour, 1998). Countering the deficit
mentality is educative supervision, where one is expected to always be learning and
developing throughout one’s professional practice.
Public perception.
Since I have known the child welfare organization that is now named MCFD, public
perception has been an issue for the organization. As a supervisor, my staff asked many
times, why does MCFD not defend us or the work we do? They would explain that if a child
dies, it is not representative of the majority of the work we do. The line from the top of
MCFD`s hierarchy would always be, [due to the confidentiality of the case we cannot speak
to the issues]. When a case was highly publicised my staff would be demoralized. The British
Columbia Representative for Children and Youth (2015) speaks to the good work that is done
and the understaffing that is a cause of many issues for MCFD.
When there was a public outcry due to a child welfare case being brought to the
attention of the public, I found that I was required to provide more administrative supervision
to ensure that the agency was not in a position of liability. The administration issues ranged

94
from ensuring case planning was updated, file documentation was up to date, locations of
children in care were known, and myriad of other information was documented. Everything
stood still until the information was gathered and reported up. Even client work was put on
hold to ensure that the supervisors could report upwards: Administration ruled.
The real issue being that the social workers who had just experienced trauma of a
case gone wrong, or they were re-experiencing secondary trauma due to the issue of being
close to types of cases they had worked on, were treated as secondary to the administrative
tasks (Adams & Balfour, 1998; Bell, et al. 2003; Bride & Jones, 2006; Calvert, 20100210
[personal journal]). Even post trauma responses of debriefing and counselling were acted on
as administrative tasks; educative supervision was secondary, as has already been discussed,
regarding my experience of a child death and the way the organization treated it. As a
supervisor, how do you know what impact a significant child welfare event, like a child’s
death, has on your staff if you do not ask them? Many times supervisees are not going to tell
you what issues they are struggling with, as a supervisor, as all they have received is
administrative supervision and they do not trust what you as a supervisor will do with the
information (Erera & Lazar, 1994a; Newell & MacNeil, 2010; Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006).
Case Example in Supervision
As a supervisor I experienced many of the different issues one faces while practising
dual role supervision. I also witnessed positive outcomes while practising dual supervision. I
also sought out educative supervision from outside of the organization because my
supervisors did not provide it.
I use a case example of a child’s death and the supervision that happened around this
event to show a representation of how supervision can have positive and negative outcomes.

95
I was a male supervising all female staff. One of my staff had First Nation heritage that she
had disclosed to me, but hid from everyone else, as she felt there was a lot of racism within
the team and the MCFD office. She was the social worker who had the file with the child
death. The child was Aboriginal and had experienced a very rough life and made choices as
to be involved with a group of people that sold and used drugs. The child’s father and mother
were heavily using drugs and alcohol. The mother was using prostitution as a way to supply
herself with the substances she used. The father was in an out of jail due to the decisions he
made. The child had a relationship with his mother, but not his father. The child died of a
drug overdose leaving behind a newborn child and his girlfriend who was a youth.
Administrative supervision focused on case reviews, where the child was residing,
court documents to serve the family court dates, connecting the child with healthy members
of his family and community plans of care for the child. Also, there was a focus on ensuring
visits and contacts with the child happened regularly. Every administrative piece was done
well, by the social worker who was a senior practitioner. As a supervisor, I reviewed the case
with the social worker regularly as it was viewed as a high risk case, due to the child’s
behaviours. I ensured that the social worker connected with the First Nation support workers
and other agencies that could provide support. I reviewed the case with my supervisor and
ensured I was giving the proper direction. I reviewed the case with the other supervisors in
the office to ensure we were doing everything we could for the child.
During this time there were fewer senior practitioners in the office than new social
workers. Much of my focus had been on hiring and training new staff, due to the constant
turnover. As well, there was a course offered to all staff to address racism that had been
identified as an issue in the office, by me and my staff members. Cultural awareness

96
workshops had recently been completed and I had worked with the management to ensure
everyone had taken the course regarding racism. I had so many administrative tasks to
complete with the hiring of new staff that clinical supervision took a back seat at this time.
Even though I had a supervision agreement with each of my staff which outlined time for
administrative and clinical supervision, most of my staff would say, I am good – we do not
need to go into the clinical part. I reinforced this practice by agreeing, and due to the high
caseloads and my administrative tasks we looked for time wherever we could find it. So
when it came time for supervision with this worker, who just had the child die on her
caseload, I focused on the administrative tasks. I set up critical incident debriefing for the
staff. I felt like I was acting like a robot, but have had one of my thesis committee point out
that I was acting like a professional, as expected – while the human heart drew back
(McDonald, 20162306 [thesis review]). My supervisor had asked me to ensure that all the
administrative tasks were completed because an audit or review would be completed due to
the death. As well, the RCY would be reviewing the files. My supervisor never once
discussed anything clinical nor did they have a supervision agreement with me. Educative
supervision consisted of a comment: “you have been through this before, you know what to
do” (Calvert, 20121503 [personal journal]).
Shortly after the death my staff member started to display issues with her work and
was not able to keep up with the work. The staff member also started working fewer hours
and coming in late to work. My supervisor wanted me to act administratively and provide her
with a letter of discipline. I pushed back as this staff member had been a highly effective
social worker. However, administratively, I was obligated to do something. When I had
supervision with her and started down the administrative road, my trusting staff member said

97
she needed educative supervision, reminding me of the supervision agreement I had signed.
At that time I started focusing on educative supervision and reviewed the issues with my staff
member and found out her needs – some of which I was not able to meet. I was able to help
her set up counselling outside of MCFD with the Employee Family Assistance Program. She
was showing signs of burnout from repeated secondary trauma and I was able to push her to
see her family physician. Through this and other steps, she was able to develop and address
the issues that were impacting her. We worked together on the administrative tasks and
slowly she got stronger.
However, it was the address of underlying issues, through educative supervision, that
allowed for the practitioner to address her administrative issues. She had followed the culture
in the office to tough it out and not go to counselling. She had not increased the professional
skills she needed to through educative supervision and did not know what to do about the
child death in her practise. As her supervisor, I struggled to provide her with the information
she needed. It was about this time that I started to receive educative supervision outside of
the office. I found a professional that would be able to support me in developing my practise
as a social worker and supervisor. It was at my staff’s educative supervision sessions that she
had revealed racism as an issue in the office to me. However, it was the administrative arm of
the organization that ensured everyone was given training, and ensured everyone in the office
knew the policy of zero tolerance regarding racism in the agency.
In this example I have not been able to write a hundredth part, but how I know that all
of the administrative tasks were done well, is due to the reviews that were done. Everyone
from the managers, director, and the RCY established that all the administrative pieces were
done well. A conflict of interest happened when the same supervisor who was my supervisor

98
and oversaw the work that was being questioned, was now the director of the audit review.
When I addressed this with the organization they did not see it as a conflict and I was told to
not question the process. Thus, even though all the files and practise were in order, there
were still recommendations to do things differently, and behind-the-doors discussions that
somehow we had failed this child. Internally, we [emphasis added] not the larger system but
frontline workers and supervisors, had failed. From the RCY’s (2015) view if MCFD had
more staff fewer child deaths would occur.

99
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
I explored the question of compatibility between administrative and educative
focused supervision. Through my autoethnographic approach I found that there were
common themes from my journaling, interview of myself, discussions with supervisors who
were still with MCFD and those supervisors who had left MCFD, literature I had reviewed,
and other studies regarding the compatibility of administrative and educative functions of
supervision (Bogo & McKnight, 2005; Caspi & Reid, 2002; Erera & Lazar, 1994a;
Greenspan, Hanfling, Parker, Primm, & Waldfogel, 1994; Hung, Ng, & Fung, 2010; Itzhaky,
2001; Kadushin, 1992; Kadushin, Berger, Gilbert & Aubin, 2009; Ladany, Hill, Corbett &
Nutt, 1996). There were also some leitmotifs that continued to flow over and over again in
the literature and from my reflections of what other supervisors have lived and conveyed to
me: the unspoken dissolving of one’s own praxis to mesh with the organization; the overt and
subversive pressures to just do what the organization asks; and the silence that screams out
for no one to hear. Bellefeuille and Schmidt (2006) explain:
The current situation for child welfare agencies is one of coping with overwhelming
budget pressures stemming from soaring caseloads and inadequate resources for
addressing the more 3complex needs of today’s child welfare population (Anderson &
Gobeil, 2003; Stephenson et al., 2000; Drake & Yadama, 1996; Kinjerski & Herbert,
2000; Regehr et al., 2000; Schmidt, 2000). There is also growing public resentment
over drastic reductions in services (CWLC, 2001; FarrisManning & Zandstra, 2003;
3

Child welfare has become more complex with dual diagnosis of children and parents. Generational
issues now being realized and addressed that complicate the work of child welfare. This is not a judgement
saying that these complexities are bad; it is just saying that they are present and the more the human condition is
studies the more understanding of the underlying and complexness of issues comes to light. As well, STS is a
relatively new field and adds a different dynamic and more convolutions.

100
HRDC, 1997; Zuravin, 2001). In short, child welfare practice is a minefield of real
and potential problems for employers, social workers, and social work educators
alike. (p. 4)
I argue that due to all of these issues and pressures, strong, ethical, supervision is needed by
all social workers working practising child welfare.
Administrative and Educative Supervision Should Not Be Practiced Together
Due to ethical concerns surrounding mixing administrative supervision with
educative/clinical supervision, I would recommend some form of separation of the two
modes. In essence they do not appear to be compatible when a supervisor is trying to deliver
both, unless doing so with specific guidance and support from the organization. Most
supervisors need help from their organizations to navigate the: 1. Ethical dilemmas; 2. Power
imbalances; 3. Time shortages; and 4. Issues of trust in the supervisor/supervisee relationship
(Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007). It appears that those who
support dual role supervision, supply caveats and discuss the pitfalls if certain components
are not established (Crea, 2010; Greenspan et al. 1994; Rauktis & Koeske, 1994; TromskiKlingshirn, 2007). Many organizations do not have the right supports in place to ensure that
dual role supervision is successful, or being practiced in a way that does not harm the clients,
staff, and the agency (Noble & Irwin, 2009). During the time of the above case example, I
would argue there was not the right supports in place for proper educative supervision.
Along with the draw backs, there are benefits to practicing dual role supervision in an
organization with the right supports. For example: 1. Cost savings to the organization can
lead to better services for clients; 2. Development of clinicians from the ranks; 3.
Organizational address to racism and sexism, 4. Organizational intelligence can be used to

101
develop better service delivery; 5. Supervisees can feel supported in the administrative work;
6. Supervisors can help the organization develop stronger clinicians, ensure training needs
are identified and addressed sooner (Landau, 2000; Kadushin et. al., 2009, Snyder & BabinsWagner, 2013, Tromski-Klingshirn, 2007). With this approach of supervision there are
recommendations I would make to help supervisors and supervisees address some risks
inherent in this model of practice (Bogo & McKnight, Bruce & Austin, 2000; Erera & Lazar,
1994a, 1994b; Hasenfeld, 1992; Iannello, 1992; Heugten, 2011; James, 1996; Noble & Irwin,
2009).
On the other hand, administrative and educative supervision can be accomplished
separately in the same organization; or the organization can contract out parts of the
administrative or the educative supervision; or supervisees can search out their own
educative supervision. However, if the administrative and educative supervision is completed
in these fashions there are certain precautions an organization, and supervisors within the
organization, should take: the amount of time that supervision takes; the cost of the provision
of service, and possible disconnect between practice and professional. As well, there are
issues the supervisee should be aware of with this type of administrative and educative
supervision, such as: expertise of the administrator and clinician; practise issues not able to
be reconciled with the supervisor; and the organization is less likely to address systemic
issues regarding the need for educative training.
Whether administrative and educative supervision are practised together or
separately, there is need to find balance between the two types of supervision for both the
supervisee and supervisor.

102
Administrative and Educative Supervision Practised in Dual Role
If administrative and educative supervision was provided to staff the organization
would be able to act in more intelligent ways to meet its’ mandate, as the top of the
organization would be better connected with the frontline staff, who have direct contact with
the external clients (Collins-Camargo, 2006). If properly done, educative supervision can
bring to light how well the mandate is being met from a client-centred perspective; then the
organization can make better Service Delivery Plans that are based on actual organizational
intelligence that is directed towards meeting the clients’ needs (Kadushin, 1996; Runté &
Mills, 2006; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007, Tsui, 2005).
Ethical dilemmas.
Many times as a supervisor I ran into ethical issues which were directly connected to
my dual role. The list is too long to write, but the more poignant issues were: holding off on
hiring a social worker that was needed to reduce staff workload due to budget pressures;
balancing staff needs with the organization’s priorities; maintaining the equilibrium between
the profession of social work and the organizational demands; and lastly, advocating for
change and still being part of the organization.
I believe the case presentation on page 101 touched on a number of ethical dilemmas.
First, as the administrative supervisor, I was asked to provide administrative supervision
when clearly educative supervision needed to be administered. Second, I had not provided
proper educative supervision, nor was I trained or mentored on how to do this by the agency.
Third, a child review was being completed and directed by the same person who supervised
my supervision of the case. My recommendation is to ensure that all levels of supervisors and

103
staff in the organization are able to learn about ethics and how to address these dilemmas
when they arise. Landau (2000) explains:
In light of the somewhat different concerns of the direct practitioners and the
directors, both joint and separate forums might be indicated: joint forums in which the
directors can learn of the dilemmas of the direct practitioners and separate forums in
which each can discuss salient issues with their peers. In particular, separate forums
may provide opportunities for the directors to discuss the interpretation and
application of different laws and policies, to share relevant information and
knowledge, to debate complicated cases, and to develop ideas for supervision on
ethical dilemmas. (p. 42)
As well it is suggested that when decisions of significance are made that:
Detailed written records of how social workers reach their ethical decisions, including
their considerations and justifications, would be of value …. Written documentation
would help to articulate the processes, reduce the redundancy, assist other social
workers facing similar dilemmas, and serve as a teaching and supervision aid.
(Landau, 2000, p. 42)
This allows for continued learning and establishes a record for all to access. Where the
practise at MCFD is to keep separate records on client files, it would be better to have a pool
of ethical decisions made for supervisors at all levels to refer to (Landau, 2000). The BC
government, unions, associations and societies all keep records of major decisions made to
refer to when making similar decisions. One can turn to the courts of law throughout most of
Canada and the United States to see the benefit of having cases to refer to for future
decisions.

104
Power imbalances.
Power imbalances are always present in a hierarchical setting such as MCFD. The
supervisor does have a great deal of authority given to them by the organization (CollinsCarpenter et al., 2013; Camargo, 2006). If the organization does not support time for
educative supervision to take place, then it will not happen. Due to the challenges of time the
dual role supervisor faces, it is suggested that a supervision agreement outlining the
parameters of supervision content, containing when and how long supervision happens,
would be a good tool to use, as the supervisor can always find an administrative task that
needs doing (Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006; Tsui, 2005). With such an agreement the supervisee
can hold the supervisor and the organization accountable for both their administrative and
educative supervision (Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006; Tsui, 2005).
Time shortages.
As a supervisor with MCFD, I was always chasing after the next administrative task
due to the amount of administration that was given to me to do. I felt like I never had enough
time:
I have given little clinical supervision to my staff in comparison to probably what
they need. I just have too many tasks that have been downloaded to me, to be able to
do it properly. I just don't have the time. (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012, p. 10)
At the same time, agencies and organizations need to look at the time demand they have
placed on supervisors and ensure the supervisors have enough time to devote to the
educational functions of supervision (Noble & Irwin, 2009). As agencies and organizations
do this, they will see the benefit of lower costs, and with proper attention turned to staff,
there will be less turnover and better outcomes as a whole for the agencies or organizations

105
(Broyles, et al., 2004). The cost-benefit analysis can be done by statisticians and accountants.
The actual numbers of how much administrative and educative supervision for a case can be
averaged and numbers can be assigned. However, frontline supervisors and social workers
with experience need to be involved in the number crunching. It always appears that the
further away from the day to day work one gets, the less likely a manager or director will be
in their ability to accurately estimate how many hours any of the frontline work takes.
Broyles et al. (2004) point out the move to cut costs by human service agencies and explain
this can be done by more efficient use of administrative services. One can argue that with
less staff turnover the administrator could focus more time on clinical responsibilities; a winwin for both agency and supervisee.
For me as a supervisor, throughout practise and specifically in the case example, I did
not focus time on educative supervision as MCFD did not make it a priority. In writing they
made it a priority; in practise and by example they did not. Supervisors of supervisors did not
practise educative supervision. Neither did they appear to receive the training necessary to do
so, with the training always changing (Blackman & Schmidt, 2013). The recommendation on
this point is for the agency to really focus on ensuring that they have enough staff to do the
work and enough supervisors at all levels to supervise (Representative for Children & Youth,
2015); then ensure that all supervisors practise solid administrative and educative supervision
at all levels.
Trust in the supervisor/supervisee relationship.
Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis (2007) point out that for educative supervision to work
there must be a level of trust between those participating in the supervision. In fact, if there is
no trust, than the supervisory relationship will not be beneficial to either participant

106
(Winofsky & Calvert, 2012). If administrative supervision is the only or the majority of
supervision one receives this relationship of trust can be hard to form between supervisee and
supervisor.
A properly written and executed supervision agreement that balances both
administrative and educative supervision will help build trust and help deal with “Tromski’s
(2000) four categories of identified problems of supervisees having the dual role supervisor:
(1) less likely to share concerns/personal information; (2) conflict of interest; (3) supervisor
exploitation; and (4) supervisor incompetence” (as cited in Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis,
2007, p. 63). The reasons why a supervisee is less likely to share concerns or personal
information focuses on the lack of trust of what a supervisor will do with the information:
Perfect supervision for me mostly would be somebody that I could trust and speak
clinically with about how I was doing, and how I was feeling in my job. I would need
to trust, have trust… I would have to establish a rapport and I would be able to
develop as a professional. Rub off the rough edges, talk about the tough things, be a
little bit critical or critiquing I guess, but give a critical analysis of me as a supervisor,
because if I'm talking to somebody in that way I have to trust them explicitly, that
they're going tell me what’s up and I can really trust that there is no other hidden
agenda. (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012. p. 13)
This kind of trust is not developed by only using administrative supervision; one must also
incorporate educative supervision as part of the guidance the supervisee is receiving.
Conflicts of interest can be another destroyer of trust between the supervisor and
supervisee. An example from my practice was that of my colleague receiving a promotion
and then being responsible for auditing the past three years of practise in the office that she

107
had been previously supervising. Of course there were no issues of practise found as she was
an excellent administrator (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012). However, this type of conflict does
not lend well to trust in the organization or practises of quality assurance. My
recommendations are that audits should be completed by an outside agency, not internally.
MCFD has centralized their auditing processes and this is better than regional offices
completing their own audits. However, it is not optimal and this type of work should be
completed by outside agencies. Many organizations have external auditors and internal
auditors completing two different types of auditing. If an organization like MCFD wants to
improve the trust within the organization they will keep the auditing at least centralized. If
they want to improve public perception they will also bring in external auditors. Friends and
acquaintances should not be auditing each other.
Benefits of dual role supervision.
Carpenter et al. (2013) reports that those who stay in child welfare give a better
evaluation assessment to supervisors who appear to give administrative and educative
supervision, with more emphasis on educative supervision:
Those workers remaining in public child welfare rated their supervisors at a
significantly higher level in terms of willingness to listen to work-related problems,
the extent to which they could be relied upon ‘when things get tough at work’, and
helping workers get their job done. Statistically significant differences were also
observed in terms of stayers' views on the skills and characteristics of their
supervisors. Compared to leavers, stayers rated their supervisors as more competent,
more concerned with staff welfare, more likely to show approval of a good job done,
more likely to help in completing difficult tasks and more likely to be ‘warm and

108
friendly’ when workers experienced ‘problems’. Similarly, Maertz et al. (2007)
reported that stayers gave higher ratings than leavers on how their supervisor
facilitated their learning and enthusiasm for the job, as well as significant differences
in the average number of hours spent with their supervisor each month. (Carpenter, et
al., 2013, p. 1850)
Thus, one can see evidence also shows a correlation between workers staying at their job
when they received a greater number of hours of supervision, and had a perception that they
were obtaining administrative and educative supervision from a competent supervisor.
Administrative supervision is the hand that deals out the discipline and educative supervision
is what one could name the prevention for having to use too much of this type of
administration (Boehm, 1996; Kadushin, 1992; Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006; TromskiKligshirn & Davis, 2007; Tsui, 2005).
This is why I was sad to leave the Southeast area of British Columbia. Both the
administrative and educative supervision together were well done. There were checks and
balances on the administrative supervision within the aboriginal organization that I worked
with. Educative supervision was built in to the supervision given to staff. Clinical supervision
was a must to properly understand and work with the issues one faced as a child protection
social worker.
Tackling the Isms.
MCFD may be able to better tackle the issues of policies and procedures that have
racist undertones, or practices that are inherently sexist, than a single supervisor. I
recommend a guide for those with decision making power or for supervisors who are
working through these types of issues with staff. Novogrodsky, as cited in James (1996),

109
gives eight “essential ingredients for an effective cast of mind” (pp.194-195) to be an antiracist advocate in society and the work place:
(1) Use of reflection on self and others philosophies; (2) respect others and help
others expand beyond understanding of racism; (3) seek out those racist ideologies, as
they harm organizations and society; (4) show deference to both the hardline antiracist advocates and those who work the sidelines of activism; (5) use of art and
cultural expression to fight racism; (6) win over enemies without pointing fingers and
make them allies; (7) all racism hurts ones experience is not greater than another, so
do not measure the hurt, but find commonalities to unite those who experience the
hurt; and, (8) find common ground in the public policy and human-rights legislation.
(p.195)
When using these eight principles one can be more self-aware and not perpetuate racism
through supervision in a bureaucratic organization.
Though it is up to the supervisee and supervisor to ensure that the values of social
work are followed and there is no racism, sexism or other harmful ism’s creeping into
practice, it is difficult to not be impacted when providing or receiving supervision by some
form of an ism. Thus, it is the work of social workers and their supervisors, who are giving
and receiving supervision, to ensure that the personal remains political and the isms are
always challenged (Mullaly, 2007). Gray and Gibbons (2007) offer this insight:
Social workers offer personal services [and] are unavoidably an important part of
those services. The art of what we do is implicit in the “work” of the social, in
constantly grappling with the tension between strong values and the uncaring
managerial institutions in which we work. Ever will it be that people need caring

110
professionals to give bureaucracies a compassionate face to serve society’s
conscience. (pp. 236-237)
Where do the supervisors gain the tools and skills necessary to provide this type of
supervision? I would argue through proper coaching, mentoring, modelling and training.
Training.
When I received training and went back to practise that which I had learned, where
my supervisor was not practising what I had learned, I felt frustrated on so many levels. Nor
were my supervisors modelling what the organization told me (at training) to model and
practice. It was confusing and difficult to practise what one was trained to do, when the
organization sends out a direct message from the executive that is not followed by one’s
supervisor.
If MCFD wants to better meet their mandate they can provide the same training to the
different levels of supervisors in its organization, including directors, managers and frontline
supervisors:
Most of the focus group participants had been involved in formal organizational
training for supervisors. In general, they were positive about the training courses they
had attended, but they questioned whether they had been able to put what they
learned into practice. The participants had a number of suggestions on how to develop
better skills after attending training courses: “The biggest thing with any of the
training opportunities … [is the] ability to actually … consciously apply it after the
course is done.” Another emphasized the importance of refresher training courses.
The participants in the second focus group identified the need for a consistent
professional development program for supervisors that did not change from year to

111
year. One participant found that because the courses differ from year to year, “it tends
to get a bit confusing.” They recommended “one focused program” that everyone
could attend. (Blackman & Schmidt, 2013, p. 98)
If dual role supervision is the model of practice that MCFD will pursue, a
recommendation is to have one sustained supervision training program that all levels of
supervisors are required to go through. If changes to the training are to take place then only
change a few parts of the program at a time; otherwise it will lead to uncertainties for
supervisors (Blackman & Schmidt, 2013). Landau (2000) explains the need for some training
to be done together with all participants and some separated, due to the different
administrative needs of different levels of supervision when training is completed about
ethical dilemmas:
In light of the somewhat different concerns of the direct practitioners and the
directors, both joint and separate forums might be indicated: joint forums in which the
directors can learn of the dilemmas of the direct practitioners and separate forums in
which each can discuss salient issues with their peers. In particular, separate forums
may provide opportunities for the directors to discuss the interpretation and
application of different laws and policies, to share relevant information and
knowledge, to debate complicated cases, and to develop ideas for supervision on
ethical dilemmas. (p. 42)
Moreover, the training and practices should be built on the same common concepts
and deliver the same messages. There should be a strong level of support for educative
supervision built into the training to reinforce the importance of this type of supervision.

112
There are many types of programs and studies that point to the significance of training
programs being connected to the field of practice (Snyder & Babins-Wagner, 2013).
Administrative and Educative Supervision Provided Separately
If a supervisor finds themselves in an organization that provides administrative and
educative supervision separately, there are a number of issues to be aware of. As well, it is
important to find balance in ones approach to supervision.
Amount of time for supervision.
It will take longer to provide supervision to staff if they have to go to two different
supervisors for supervision. Time is money to most organizations:
The training of supervisors in Child Welfare is strategically and ethically (Bernard &
Goodyear, 2009) important to Child Welfare organizations. Training is costly in
terms of time and dollars invested, and it is critical that organizations work towards
ensuring that the training supervisors receive is transferred into the workplace in ways
that fulfill the organization’s objectives (Amodeo, Bratiotis, & Collins, 2009), and
enhances the supervisor’s knowledge and skills in how to work effectively with their
supervisees (Kanak, Baker, Herz, & Merciolek, 2008). (Snyder-Babins-Wagner,
2013, p. 5)
Cost of the provision of service.
It costs money to provide service in most contexts. However, it can cost more to
provide service in rural locations where there may not be the expertise needed to provide
split supervision roles. Cost is not only monetary, but also in the amount of time it takes to
supervise in more rural settings, where there is not always a pool of senior staff to help with
the training of new social workers:

113
Canadian researcher Glen Schmidt (2008) conducted an exploratory, qualitative study
to examine whether or not geographical location influences the requirements of
supervision in Child Welfare. Participants in this study were from both rural Northern
communities in Canada and large urban centres. Schmidt found that supervisors from
northern Canada were more concerned about the level of inexperience of workers in
the North and the challenges associated with retaining workers than those in urban
centres. Northern supervisors reported spending more time in the role of educator and
reported spending more time involved with their supervisees in direct practice. These
demands took time from supervisors that might otherwise be spent in program or
community development. Recognizing the importance of geographical location as a
contextual factor is highlighted in this work and Schmidt’s work reinforces the
importance of considering context and location in which supervision in Child Welfare
will occur. (Snyder & Babins-Wagner, 2013, p. 16)
As a supervisor, I experienced this dynamic where more time was spent with staff as
a supervisor due to lack the lack of experienced staff to help in the training of new staff.
However, this did not appear to be taken into account, and the same formulas were used
province wide to calculate supervisor to staff ratio’s (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012). It is
important for the organization to adjust supervisor and supervisee ratios as needed for
different regional needs (Snyder & Babins-Wagner, 2013). There have not been costing
models showing the cost or benefits to having two different supervisors provide the two
different formats of supervision – this would be a recommendation from this study. Studies
show that there are fewer turnovers when there is quality administrative and educative
supervision (Broyles, Lutchmie, & Robertson, 2004; Carpenter, Webb & Bostock,

114
2013).Would there be an overall savings to organizations that provided separate formats of
supervision to their staff? This would entail hiring more supervisors and frontline staff,
which is counterintuitive to the economy of bureaucracies – to do more with less.
Disconnect between practice and professional.
When administrative and educative supervision is given by two different supervisors,
another issue comes to the forefront. The supervisee and supervisors are may find a
disconnection between the practise and the professional. If one views an organization as a
community, there are certain pieces of experience that should be communicated. Supervisors
are the integral link between practitioners, bodies of social work knowledge, organizations,
and external clients (Kadushin, 1992; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007; Tsui, 2005). The
link signifies the transfer of professional knowledge from the profession to the employee
through the supervisor, from academia through the employee to the supervisor, and then to
the organization. The connection also signifies the conveying of goals, policies and
procedures from the organization to the employees, again through the supervisor.
The connections that employees make with the external clients are also beneficial to
the organization. Knowledge and understanding of client issues are brought to the
organization through the supervisor (Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007). Moreover, with the
supervisor being the gate through which information passes back and forth to the
organization, it is important to breed a culture of communication and openness. In many
organizations, one will find that social work supervisors run into difficulties trying to
communicate with the organization or their employees, due to the environment not being
open to change and learning (Kadushin, 1992; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007).

115
Thus, if supervision is being practiced in a separate fashion, the supervisee may not
be able to be successful in applying new clinical knowledge to administrative tasks, as well
as being able to navigate administrative supervision without support from both supervisors
working together in some fashion (Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007).
Finding Balance as an Administrator and Clinician
It is important as a social worker that one receives supervision either from inside the
organization, outside of the organization, or both. No matter the studies that repeat
themselves about the positive or negative aspects of practising administrative and educative
supervision apart or together; there are practicable solutions for all supervisors. A social
work supervisor will, most likely, find themselves in an agency practising some form of dual
role supervision (Crea, 2010; Greenspan et al. 1994; Rauktis & Koeske, 1994; TromskiKlingshirn & Davis, 2007). This is not the best format for supervision; however, it is the
most common format of supervision in a human service organization.
As a supervisor that practises dual role supervision, there are complex, ethical and
pragmatic issues to work through. If one finds themselves in a position where they can have
some form of educative supervision outside of the organization, most studies recommend
this, however, there is caution given due to several issues one may experience (Bogo &
McKnight, Bruce & Austin, 2000; Erera & Lazar, 1994a, 1994b; Hasenfeld, 1992; Iannello,
1992; Heugten, 2011; James, 1996; Noble & Irwin, 2009). I believe that there are more
studies that need to be completed regarding the compatibility of administrative and educative
supervision; however, they may never be completed. Until they are, we must practise
supervision where we stand.

116
I propose a road map for organizations and supervisors to follow for better success in
providing the needed supervision to staff. First, supervision contracts should be established
between supervisor and supervisee, with the contents of the agreement being supported by
the organization (Osborn & Davis, 1996; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007; Tsui 2005).
Second, while developing a supervision contract the following questions should be discussed:
“What do we expect from each other? What can we give to each other? Are our goals the
same? How can we achieve them? What constraints exist? How do we know when we have
achieved the goals? (Tsui, 2005, p. 127)” Third, ethical issues and power imbalances should
be discussed, recorded, and addressed by the supervisee, supervisor and organization at large,
see page 108, (Landau, 2000; Snyder & Babnis-Wagner, 2013; Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006;
Tsui, 2005). Fourth, the organizational culture should be supportive of educational
supervision; providing training reinforcing this position to all levels of supervisees and
supervisors in the organization, see Training section page 114 (Osborn & Davis, 1996;
Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007; Tsui, 2005). Fifth, as all social workers practising in an
agency are internal clients to that agency, it is important to understand the impacts that
administrative and educative supervision can have on us, through the change process that
happens regularly in the agencies we work in. Riolli and Savicki (2006) explore how
supervision, among other things, influences the practitioner experiencing stressful events,
like organizational change, that happens in every human service organization and how that
change correlates with burnout. Riolli and Savicki (2006) explain that lessons learned from
their study:
First, prior to an organizational change, informing employees at all levels of the
rationale and process is important. Eliciting and responding to employee concerns

117
will likely help reduce strain during change. Second, supervisors have a key role to
play during the change. Merely invoking one’s status as a supervisor as the reason for
an employee to comply is not sufficient to avoid strain and turnover. Clearly,
avoiding coercion is important, but reward and modeling also may help subordinates
weather the acute stress situation. Third, employee coping that is problem focused
yields less strain and burnout. Coaching and instruction in problem-solving strategies
can be useful. Finally, managers need to be sensitive to the threats to employees’
sense of accomplishment during stressful times. It may well be that the workers who
put forth the most effort are the very ones most vulnerable to an increase in
psychological symptoms. (p. 374)
Collins-Camargo’s (2007) study showed a marked decrease in burnout when regular
clinical/educative supervision was provided to staff. That if an organization wanted to
decrease turnover they needed to increase the cultural support for educative supervision
(Collins-Camargo, 2007). If an organization is carrying out a change process it would benefit
from having a strong culture of educative supervision in place, before the change process
occurred.
Collins-Camargo (2007) found that even though “administrative duties were seen by
workers, supervisors and middle managers as less important to service provision than many
other aspects of supervision although they often took precedence” (p. 101). Thus, as change
is a part of every work life, we as supervisors can act to protect our human resources: enact
the recommendations of studies that show how we can help those we supervise with the
necessary administrative and educative supervision.

118
Supervision contracts.
If one finds oneself having to practice supervision in an organization it is important to
establish an agreement of supervision with the supervisee (Osborn & Davis, 1996; TromskiKlingshirn & Davis, 2007). Some agencies already have guidelines or simple agreements
written into policy and procedures; it is important as a social worker receiving supervision to
have such an agreement to promote their needs being met. As a supervisor, one must ensure
the agreement or contract falls in line with what the organization will support, or you may be
setting yourself and your supervisee up for failure. Tromski-Klingshirn (2006) expound on
proper supervisory practice: “a written supervision contract is the best way to ensure mutual
understanding, agreement, and accountability of the supervision roles and responsibilities for
both the supervisor and supervisee” (p. 65).
Model for a supervision contract.
Tromski-Klingshirn and Davis (2007) discussed a six point framework for
supervision contracts and explained the importance of including limits and concerns central
to educative supervision, when the supervisor is in a dual role of providing both
administrative and educative supervision. “Emphasizing the collaboration of the written
contract between supervisor and supervisee (Osborn & Davis, 1996), the issues of the clinical
supervisor as administrative supervisor phenomenon must be discussed when formulating the
written supervision contract” (Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007, p. 62) (See Figure 2).
First, Tromski-Klingshirn and Davis (2007) explain that the agreement should be in
writing and the “purpose, goals, and objectives of both” (p.62) administrative and educative
supervision should be defined. I found in my practise this allowed for both parties in the

119
supervision contract to know what to expect from each other. As well, this gave a forum as a
supervisor to discuss the expectations of the organization.
Second, the ecosystem of supervision needs to be established, as Tromski-Klingshirn
and Davis (2007) recommend:
In addition to what Osborn and Davis suggested (e.g., the amount and length of
supervision sessions; setting or modality such as individual and/or group supervision;
educational and monitoring activities; supervision model(s) used), it would be
important to set the schedule and map out the context of clinical supervision sessions
and administrative supervision sessions separately. Using Tromski’s (2000)
definitions of clinical supervision and administrative supervision to outline the
context of each type of supervision session would help to alleviate the “Conflict of
Interest” problem identified by him, in that it would be clear which issues, when, and
how much time is spent on clinical versus administrative issues. (p. 63)
I found that an explanation of what the ecosystem surrounding my supervision would be
allowed me to adjust my expectations and practise. I found having discussion helped me to
adjust to the work and not have stress about supervision. When I worked for an Aboriginal
agency, my supervisor took me into his office the first day I arrived and explained the
ecosystem of supervision in the agency. He stated: “things are very different here then at the
ministry; you will receive supervision from me, the agency, your colleagues, the Elders, and
community members” (Calvert, 20040606 [personal journal]). This was an adjustment for me
and it was far easier to have a supervisor explain what to expect.

120
Figure 4. Components of Supervision Agreement or Contract
Purpose, Goals, and
Objectives of Both Social
Worker & Supervisor

Supervisor’s Scope of
Competence

Ecosystem of Supervision

Supervision
Contract

Procedural Considerations

Method of Evaluation
Duties and Responsibilities of
Supervisor-Supervisee

Third, it is imperative for the dual role supervisor to discuss with the supervisee how
they will be evaluated during supervision, ensuring the supervisor:
Clearly communicate[s] what exactly is evaluated … and in what way, that is, how
much bearing this will have on the supervisee’s administrative evaluation (e.g.,
annual employee evaluation). Doing this should help offset three potential problems
outlined by Tromski (2000): (1) Less Likely to Share Concerns/Personal Information;
(2) Conflict of Interest; and (3) Supervisor Exploitation. (Tromski-Klingshirn &
Davis, 2007, pp. 63-64)
Within MCFD evaluations are supposed to be completed in writing once a year with
quarterly updates. However, these updates are not always completed and sometimes it is at
the end of the year that the assessments are rushed. I found it beneficial to tie in both the
administrative and educative supervision into the evaluations. I was able to capture the
development of the professional and how the professional was achieving the administrative

121
tasks. I found as I approached the evaluation with a strengths-based approach, the employees
became more engaged in their performance evaluations (Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007).
As well, I found that as more information throughout the year was added to the evaluations,
the employees were more engaged in the educative supervision and shared more about their
practise (Tsui, 2005).
Fourth, Tromski-Klingshirn and Davis (2007) explain “duties and responsibilities of
supervisor-supervisee” (p. 64) need to be clearly written into the supervision agreement.
They explain this part of the agreement sets out the boundaries of who is responsible for what
and when. As well, they express this is the time the supervisee and supervisor should discuss
“potential benefits, and what potential conflicts might come from this dual supervisor role
with the supervisee” (Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007, p. 64). Through training I received
from the BC PSA and MCFD I was introduced to concepts of administrative and educative
supervision; however, in practice, I rarely saw educative supervision. I tried to practise
educative supervision more, as I became more aware of the benefits it provided. I do not
believe I ever had a full conversation, covering all the different aspects of administrative and
educative supervision, with any of my supervisees or supervisors. As well, I never discussed
possible conflicts that the dual role of supervision could present. I recommend such a full
conversation, as it would have allowed for better understanding of my role as a supervisee
and later as supervisor.
The fifth point that should be included in the written supervision agreement is how to
resolve a conflict, including:
both the supervisor and supervisee to each have an appropriate third party to discuss
any conflicts in the supervisor-supervisee relationship, whether it be related to the

122
clinical supervisory relationship or the administrative supervisory relationship. Also,
a suggestion for handling a potential problem area identified in the Tromski (2000)
study, “Less Likely to Share Concerns/Personal Information” is that the supervisee
and supervisor should agree on a third party to whom the supervisee can go to for
supervision on a particular issue which the supervisee feels reluctant to share.
(Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007, p. 64)
Tromski-Klingshirn and Davis (2007) point out that this part of the supervision contract
should include how to resolve “ethical” (p. 64) dilemmas surrounding services and
supervision. I believe that due to the hierarchical structure of MFCD, they do a somewhat
good job of explaining that if you have an issue with your supervisor, you need to discuss
this with your supervisor, and then if you are not able to come to a resolution, take it to your
supervisor’s supervisor. I believe that this is not exactly what Tromski-Klingshirn and Davis
had in mind, but if this is the process outlined in procedure and policy, it would be important
to highlight this aspect in the agreement. As well, highlighting a union agreement where a
union representative may need to be present during some parts of supervision (Seventeenth
Master Agreement, 2014).
The sixth point relates to the “supervisor’s scope of competence” (TromskiKlingshirn & Davis, 2007, p. 65), which I would argue is one of the most important. Many
times, I was out of my area of competence practising dual role supervision. I also
experienced supervision sessions when it was apparent that my supervisor was practising
outside their areas of competence (Winofsky & Calvert, 2012). Tromski-Klingshirn and
Davis (2007) go on to explain why it is important to practise within the scope of one’s
competence:

123
Osborn and Davis reiterated the 1993 ACES guidelines, which state the supervisors
practice (e.g., supervise) only within their scope of competence, and that supervisors
state clearly their areas of professional competence. In addition, it is the supervisor’s
ethical duty to receive “timely and appropriate consultation” and training to expand
her/his expertise. In addressing the fourth problem identified in Tromski’s (2000)
study, “Supervisor Incompetence,” any administrative supervisor doing clinical
supervision needs to be clinically supervising only in the areas in which he or she has
clinical expertise, or it is clearly a breach of supervision ethics. (p. 65)
I would argue that many of the issues faced by MCFD are due to many of the supervisors, at
all levels, not having the correct skills set. Many are practising outside of their scope of
competence due to high turnover of staff, thus reducing the pool that supervisors come out of
(Blackman & Schmidt, 2013), as well as not enough supervisors being hired (British
Columbia’s Representative for Children and Youth, 2015). As a supervisee, I would not
share information about myself or issues I was facing with my staff with my supervisor, due
to what I perceived as a lack of competence in the area I needed guidance. Instead, I went
outside the organization or to another inside the organization with the skill set.
My involvement with supervision contracts.
Supervision contracts were introduced to me while I was going to university to obtain
my bachelor of social work, and then again when I was in my fifth year of practise in child
welfare. The agreements informed me: when supervision would happen, how long it would
be, who would be present, what would happen during supervision, whom would collect
information during supervision, and what would be done with the information after it was
collected. This allowed me to know what to expect each time and to build trust in my

124
supervisor when the agreement was followed. In turn, I brought the idea of a supervision
agreement to the North service area of MCFD from the Interior Region, and introduced my
supervisor to the concept of a supervision contract. I also entered into supervision agreements
with my staff. However, supervisors find themselves challenged by the demands of
administrative supervision placed on them by MCFD. Snyder and Babins-Wagner (2013)
explain: “Child Welfare supervisors have since the early 1990’s been required to engage
more in the management/administrative supervisory function than the others [educative,
supportive, mediation] due to an emphasis in Child Welfare on monitoring workers’ ability to
assess and manage risk” (p. 26). The administrative demands usually took the time that I and
my staff agreed to have educative supervision. The ratio of staff to supervisor was always
high and this leads to fewer hours to supervise staff (Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007).
One must hold to the supervision agreement and keep that time sacred as this will allow for
the needed educative supervision. I recommend this be addressed in the supervision contract
and discussions while developing the contract. I also recommend the discussions of using
outside supports if the supervisor cannot effectively meet the time demands of a supervision
contract. This should be explicit; so as to not leave the supervisee floundering as to what to
do if educative supervision is not given. As well, the supervisor should address the ethical
issues of being a dual role supervisor, and how dual role supervision may not be the best
form of supervision though it is the most common.
Snyder and Babins-Wagner (2013) explain that “effective supervision is associated
with beneficial outcomes for supervisees including: enhanced thinking skills and critical
decision-making; a sense of empowerment, competence and personal accomplishment;
organizational commitment and organizational cultural behavior; and enhanced job

125
satisfaction and job retention” (p. 24). Looking forward, there is a great deal more research
needed into the effective use of supervision for better organizational outcomes, including
better outcomes for the internal and external clients (Bishop, 2005; Brashears, 1995;
Tromski-Klingshirn, 2006; Tromski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007). I recommend specifically
studying the cost benefit analysis of proper supervision. As well, I recommend further
research into the ethical practises of child welfare agencies, specifically regarding
supervision of all levels of social workers in an organization.
Chapter Six: Conclusion
Though dual role is the most common form of supervision found in the field, one can
choose to not accept it as the best form of supervision and:
[Reflect] on the evidence from correlational studies ... [suggesting] there is some
support for the following: supervision works best when it pays attention to task
assistance, social and emotional support and a positive interpersonal relationship
between supervisors and supervisees. In particular, task assistance and the importance
of supervision in the acquisition of new skills and problem-solving are valued by
workers. This is true for both relatively experienced and inexperienced practitioners.
Given the evidence that supervision is associated with job satisfaction and protects
against stress, practitioners should insist that good supervision be provided by their
employers. The emotionally charged nature of the work places particular kinds of
demands on people working in the child welfare field which need to be contained by
the organization. This means moving beyond a focus on task and prescription, and
providing opportunities for reflective supervision. (Carpenter, et al., 2013, p. 1851)

126
It is our responsibility as social workers to demand better supervision at all levels of practise.
Looking forward, MCFD must increase their staffing levels; all social workers, including
supervisors with MCFD, will have to advocate for more time with staff to provide educative
supervision, even with the demands of administrative functions knocking on the door
(Bishop, 2005; Brashears, 1995; RCY, 2015; Winosky & Calvert, 2012).
As a supervisor within MCFD I was given a paper outlining the best practices
approach to clinical supervision. This was the document I had introduced to the North
Region with some minor changes done by the region. This document did not ensure that I
gave good clinical supervision to my staff. Nor, did the organization provide the need
supports of more staff to manage the work and more supervisors to properly carry out what
they were asking. Instead they just said it needs to be done. So, I turned the tables and
expressed that I needed educational supervision, just as much as the social workers; I pointed
out that managers under the same document must provide me with proper clinical
supervision. This was not well accepted and there was a half-hearted attempt to fulfill their
mandate. However, the difficulties in properly carrying out the mandate were soon apparent.
When one engages the democratic mechanisms in an organization, the organization I obliged
to follow them. This will allow for a proper space to discuss the issues that are faced by the
supervisor in carrying out the mandate.
Organizations Responsibility
I believe that this research has shown that if administrative and educative supervision
is to be practiced together, there needs to be stronger supports put in place for all levels of
supervisors. Supervision needs to incorporate the community component and include
members of the community in providing educational supervision to the supervisors and

127
supervisees servicing the community. Educational supervision must not only be mandated by
the organization, but practiced at all levels so supervision is modelled from the top down and
praxis changes from the bottom up. This focus on educational supervision will help transfer
knowledge from academia and clients to organizations - flowing from the front line workers
and supervisors. As well, the organization will experience better success at meeting mandates
with the knowledge and skills that organization can transfer to all staff through proper
supervision with more focus on educational supervision. This will transfer into better service
delivery plans that are more client focused and more positive public perception of the
organization.
The organization must incorporate ethical training at all levels from executive
through to frontline staff. As well, decision making about ethical decisions need to be
connected with research and include all levels of community I have identified that are
important in the supervision processes. As well, these decisions should be documented and
made available to all. In my own experience, when one brings that discussion of ethics up to
an organizational level, such as my discussion about racism, it becomes important to the
organization. This can be an in road, to create time and space for supervision. It is the
convincing of the organization that an ethical issue, such as linking educational supervision
with opportunity to address racism or sexism as an important part of supervision. Once the
organization feels that it is an important enough issue they will act to address it. They will
give time and space to supervisors to address this issue in educational supervision and
provide training to the whole organization. As a supervisor if you want to see change
convince the agency that there is a real issue and point them towards a way to fix it and they
will usually go down the path.

128
Supervisees and supervisors flourish when they are supervised well and have
reasonable workloads. Many works speak specifically to appropriate caseload sizes outlined
in the review by Tittle (2002). I recommend that they be followed or an agency may be in
jeopardy of unethical practice, as well as creating a situation where the agency will not be
able to properly meet the needs of clients. I contend that unethical practice should be
immediately stopped and the realities of staff shortages should be properly faced, and
shortcomings addressed. The financial costs are insignificant when weighted against the
human cost on the external and internal clients. Not only should caseload size and
complexity be addressed, but to address issues with educational supervision that can improve
social workers ability to meet administrative demands (See Case Example) and prevent
burnout (Gustafson, et al., 2010; Heugten, 2011; Newell & MacNeil, 2010).
Protecting Social Work as a Profession
A new or existing regulatory body needs to govern social work practice and be very
connected with academia. This body should be mandated to regulate all social work practice.
This body should require that organizations employing social workers provide all the
components of supervision. Social work practice and ethics are not always adhered to in
organizations that employee social workers and this harms the profession and the
professional. If a medical doctor is practicing medicine he or she is mandated by a regulatory
body to practice in certain ways and with certain ethics. The regulatory body holds the
organizations and the practitioner responsible for the practice. In British Columbia this
should be the same for a social worker practicing social work. However, at this time it is not.

129
A Social Workers Responsibility
As social workers, we must speak up and take action against the disregard for ethical
practice that is being displayed by agencies that do not address the supervision needs of
internal clients; that then negatively impact the external clients. We must speak up at every
turn and challenge unethical practice and name it for what it is; an affront to our very
profession and to those whom we serve. If there is a focus on internal and external ethical
practise by social workers and supervisors, believe there will eventually be room for
educational supervision. Administrative and educational supervision need to be balanced so
that each part of supervision can build the professional and profession. We can make
demands to have the supervision that we need as a professional. During my practice I have
had many supervisors practice poor balance in the supervision given to me. It is not until I
demand that the organization makes a choice for me and my supervisor as to what
administrative tasks should be waived so I can get my educative supervision - that I actually
get my educational supervision. It is not until I actually ask my supervisor about the
supervisor’s level of competence that I know what level of supervision I will get from the
supervisor and what supervision I will have to go outside of the agency to get. As well, the
agency will be put into a position where they will need to develop all supervisors’ levels of
competencies, because the supervisors will demand it so those they supervise will see them
as competent in more areas. If we do not make the personal political and ask or demand
better we will not get it. In my practice if I did not ask there was not change. When I asked or
pointed out an issue bigger than my own practice there was at the very least a dialogue and a
change in the level of consciousness about the subject; and sometimes I even got what I
asked for. This created a change in praxis around supervision.

130
References
Absolon, K. & Willett, C. (2005). Putting ourselves forward: location in Aboriginal research.
In L. Brown and S. Strega, Research as resistance: critical, indigenous, & antioppressive approaches (pp. 97-126), Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (1998). Unmasking administrative evil. Armonk, New York:
M. E. Sharpe.
Alchin, L. K. (2012). William Shakespeare info: The complete works online. Retrieved from
http://www.william-shakespeare.info/index.htm
Alinsky, S. E. (1971). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New
York: Random House.
Arendale, D. (2007). A glossary of developmental education and learning assistance terms.
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 10-34, doi:
10.1080/10790195.2007. 10850202
Armstrong, J. C. (1994). We get our living like milk from the land. Canada: Theytus Books.
Atlee, J. S., & Atlee, T. (1992). Democracy: A social power analysis. Thinkpeace, 37/38, 212. Retrieved from www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_democSocPwrAnal.htm
Baines, D. (2004). Caring for nothing: Work organization and unwaged labour in social
services. Work, Employment and Society, 18, 267-295.
doi:10.1177/09500172004042770
Barker, R. L. (2003). The social work dictionary (5th ed.). Washington DC. NASW Press.
National Association of Social Workers.
Belanger, K., & Stone, W. (2008). The social service divide: Service availability and
accessibility in rural versus urban counties and impact on child welfare outcomes.
Child Welfare, 87(4), 101-124. Retrieved from
http://library.unbc.ca:2067/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?sid=d07ee7f4-9b1f-4da8b7d1-49b9de0384e7%40sessionmgr113&vid= 14&hid=105
Bell, H., Kulkarni, S., & Dalton, L. (2003). Organizational prevention of vicarious trauma.
Families in Society, 84(4), 463-470.
Bellefeuille, G., & Schmidt, G. (2006). Between a rock and a hard place: Child welfare
practice and social work education. Social Work Education, 25(1), 3-16.
doi:10.1080/0261547 0500477797
Bishop, A. (2005). Beyond token change: Breaking the cycle of oppression in institutions.
Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

131
Blackman, K. & Schmidt, G. (2013). The Development of Child Protection Supervisors in
Northern British Columbia. Child Welfare, 92(5), 87-105.
Blackstock, C. & Trocme, N. (2005). Community-based child welfare for Aboriginal
children: Supporting resilience through structural change. Social Policy Journal of
New Zealand, March(4), 13-33. Retrieved from
https://obrieniph.ucalgary.ca/files/iph/blackstock-communiybased_welfare_aboriginals.pdf
Blum, L. A. (1994). Moral perception and particularity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Boehm, A. (1996). Forces driving competition in human service organizations and positional
competitive responses. Administration in Social Work, 20(4), 61-78.
Bogo, M., & McKnight, K. (2005). Clinical supervision in social work: A review of the
research literature. Clinical Supervisor, 24, 49-67. doi:10.1300/J001v24n01.04
Brashears, F. (1995). Supervision as social work practice: A reconceptualization. Social
Work, 40(5), 5-9.
Bride, B. E. & Jones, J. L. (2006). Secondary traumatic stress in child welfare workers:
Exploring the role of supervisory culture. Professional Development: The
International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 9(2/3), 38-43. Retrieved
from http://www.profdevjournal.org/articles/92038.pdf
British Columbia’s Representative for Children and Youth. (2015). The thin front line:
MCFD staffing crunch leaves social workers over-burdened, B.C. children underprotected. Retrieved from
https://www.rcybc.ca/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/reports_ publications/rcythethinfrontline-oct2015-final_revised.pdf
Brown, L. & Strega, S. (Eds.). (2005). Research as resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and antioppressive approaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Broyles, R. W., Lutchmie, N., & Robertson, M. J. (2004). Assessing administrative costs of
mental health and substance abuse services. Administration and Policy in Mental
Health, 31, 393–408. doi:10.1023/B:APIH.0000034416.45790.a3
Bruce, E. J., & Austin, M. J. (2000). Social work supervision: Assessing the past and
mapping the future. Clinical Supervisor, 19(2), 85-107. Retrieved from
http://library.unbc.ca:2067/ ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e954d1bb-9ded-4288a85b-209eefe65017%40session mgr113&vid=11 &hid=104

132
Carpenter, J., Webb, C. M., & Bostock, L. (2013). The surprisingly weak evidence base for
supervision: Findings from a systematic review of research in child welfare practice
(2000–2012). Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11), 1843-1853.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.08.014
Caspi, J., & Reid, W. (2002). Educational supervision in social work: A task-centered model
for field instruction and staff development. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press.
Child, Family and Community Services Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia (1996, c.
46). Retrieved from
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96046_01# section92.
Collier, K. (2006). Social work with rural peoples. Vancouver, British Columbia: New Star
Books.
Collingridge, D. S., & Gantt, E. E. (2008). The quality of qualitative research. American
Journal of Medical Quality, 23(5), 389-395. doi:10.1177/1062860608320646
Collins-Camargo, C. (2006). Clinical supervision in public child welfare: Themes from a
multi-site study. Professional Development: Journal of Continuing Social Work
Education, 9(2/3), 102–112. Retrieved from
http://www.profdevjournal.org/articles/92100.pdf
Collins-Camargo, C., Sullivan, D. J., Washeck, B., & Sundet, P. (2009). One state’s effort to
improve recruitment, retention, and practice through multifaceted clinical supervision
interventions. Child Welfare, 88(5) 87-107.
Crea, T. M. (2010). Balanced decision making in child welfare: Structured processes
informed by multiple perspectives. Administration in Social Work, 34, 196–212.
doi:10.1080/03 643101003609529
Creswell, J. W. (2003). A framework for design. In Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches 2nd ed. (pp. 3-23), Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Csiernik, R. & Csiernik, A. (2012). Canadian employee assistance programming: An
overview. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 27(2), 100-116, doi:
10.1080/15555240.2012. 666465
De Boer, C., & Coady, N. (2007). Good helping relationships in child welfare: Learning for
stories of success. Child and Family Social Work, 1(12), 32-42. doi:10.1111/j.13652206.2006.00438.x

133
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction: Critical methodologies and indigenous
inquiry. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln, and L. Smith, Handbook of critical and indigenous
methodologies (pp. 1-20), Los Angeles: Sage.
Dill, K., & Bogo, M. (2009). Moving beyond the administrative: Supervisors' perspectives on
clinical supervision in child welfare. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 3, 87-105. doi:
10.1080/ 15548730802695105
Duncan, M. (2004). Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an emerging art. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(4) Article 3. Retrieved from
http://www.ualberta.ca/ ~iiqm/backissues/3_4/pdf/duncan.pdf
Eagly, A., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissezfaire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological
Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.
Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (2nd ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 733-768).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
254703924_Autoethnography_Personal_Narrative_Reflexivity_Researcher_as_Subje
ct
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical
Research 36(4), 273-290. doi: 10.2307/23032294
Erera, I., & Lazar, A. (1994a). The administrative and educational functions in supervision:
Indications of incompatibility. Clinical Supervisor, 12(2), 39-56.
Erera, I., & Lazar, A. (1994b). Operationalizing Kadushin’s model of social work
supervision. Journal of Social Service Research, 18(3/4), 109-122.
Fook, J. (2002). Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Foster, L. T., & Warf, B. (Eds.). (2007). People, politics, and child welfare in British
Columbia. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition. New York:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Fritze, C. (2006). The Theory of Paulo Freire. Retrieved from http://stclares.ca/pdfs/
The%20Theory%20of%20Paulo%20Freire.pdf

134
George, V. & Wilding, P. (1989). Society, the state, social problems and social policy, In
Ideology and social welfare. (pp. 1-18). London: Routledge.
Grant, J. D. & Mills, A. J. (2006). The quiet Americans: Formative context, the academy of
management leadership, and the management textbook, 1936–1960. Management &
Organizational History, 1(2), 201–224. doi:10.1177/1744935906064088
Gray, M. & Gibbons, J. (2007). There are no answers, only choices: Teaching ethical
decision making in social work. Australian Social Work 60(2), 222-238.
Greenspan, R., Hanfling, S., Parker, E., Primm, S., & Waldfogel, D. (1994). Supervision of
experienced agency workers: A descriptive study. Clinical Supervisor, 9(2), 31-42.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An
experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59-82.
doi:10.1177/1525822X0 5279903
Gustafson, G., Eriksson, S., Strandberg, G., & Norberg, A. (2010). Burnout and perceptions
of
conscience among health care personnel: A pilot study. Nursing Ethics, 17(1), 23-38.
Hasenfeld, Y. (1992). Human services as complex organizations. New Bury Park,
California: Sage.
Henwood, K., Pidgeon, N., Sarre, S., Simmons, P., & Smith, N. (2008). Risk, framing and
everyday life: Epistemological and methodological reflections from three sociocultural projects. Health Risk & Society, 10, 421-438.
Heugten, K. V. (2011). Social work under pressure: How to overcome stress, fatigue and
burnout in the workplace. London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
hooks, b. (1995). Killing rage: ending racism. New York: H. Holt and Co.
Houston, S. (2001). Using critical social theory to develop a conceptual framework for
comparative social work. International Journal of Social Work, 10(1), 66-73. doi:
10.1111/1468-2397.00153
Hung, S. L., Ng, S. L., & Fung, K. K. (2010) Functions of social work supervision in
Shenzhen: Insights from the cross-border supervision model. International Social
Work, 53(3) 366-378. doi:10.1177/0020872809359864
Iannello, K. P. (1992). Decisions without hierarchy: Feminist interventions in organization
theory and practice. London, England: Routledge.
Itzhaky, H. (2001). Factors relating to “interferences” in communication between supervisor
and supervisee: Differences between the external and internal supervisor. The Clinical

135
Supervisor, 20(1), 73-85. Retrieved from http://library.unbc.ca:2067/ehost/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?sid=ea324a47-fb1b-493d-a5214cba87a95356%40sessionmgr110&vid=4& hid=104
Inman, A. G. (2006). Supervisor multicultural competence and its relation to supervisory
process and outcome. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(1), 73–85.
James, C. E. (1996). Perspectives on racism and the human services sector: A case for
change. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Kadushin, A. (1992) Supervision in Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kadushin, G., Berger, C., Gilbert, C., & Aubin, M. D. (2009). Models and methods in
hospital social work supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 28, 180-199.
doi:10.1080/073252209 03324660
Koerber, A., & McMichael, L. (2008). Qualitative sampling methods - A primer for technical
communicators. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22, 454-473.
Landau, R. (2000). Ethical dilemmas in general hospitals: Differential perceptions of direct
practitioners and directors of social services. Social Work in Health Care, 30(4), 2544.
Ladany, N., Hill, C. E., Corbett, M. M., & Nutt, E. A. (1996). Nature, extent, and importance
of what psychotherapy trainees do not disclose to their supervisors. Journal of
Counselling Psychology, 43, 10–24. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.1.10
Lopez, K.A., & Willis, D.G. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their
contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726-735.
Maler, M. F., McSherry, D., Larkin, E., Kelly, G., Robinson, C. & Schubotz, D. (2010).
Young children returning home from care: the birth parents' perspective. Child &
Family Social Work, 15(1), 77-86. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00645.x
Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2015). Performance management report.
Volume 6, March. Retrieved from https://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/about_us/pdf/mcfd
_pmr_mar_2015.pdf
Mills, A., & Simmons, T. (1999). Reading organization theory: A critical approach to the
study of organizational behaviour and structure. Montreal: Garamond.
McKenzie, B. D., & Wharf, B. (2010). Connecting policy to practice in the human services.
Canada: Oxford Press
Mullaly, R. P. (2007). The new structural social work. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press

136
Newell, J. M., & MacNeil, G. (2010). Professional burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and
compassion fatigue: A review of theoretical terms, risk factors, and preventive
methods for clinicians. Best Practices in Mental Health: An International Journal,
6(2), 57-68.
Noble, C., & Irwin, J. (2009). Social work supervision: An exploration of the current
challenges in a rapidly changing social, economic, and political environment. Journal
of Social Work, 9(3), 345-358.
Olkin, R., & Pledger, C. (2003). Can disability studies and psychology join hands? American
Psychologist, 58(4), 296-304. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.4.296
Osborn, C. J. & Davis, T. E. (1996). The supervision contract: Making it perfectly clear. The
Clinical Supervisor, 14(2), 121-134. doi:10.1300/J001v14n02_10
Raber, M. (1996). Downsizing the nation’s labor force and a needed social work response.
Administration in Social Work, 20(1), 47-58.
Rauktis, M., & Koeske, G. (1994). Maintaining social work morale: When supportive
supervision is not enough. Administration in Social Work, 18(1), 39-60.
Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. G. (2006). Disability justifies exclusion of minority students: A
critical history grounded in disability studies. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 18-23.
doi:10.3102/0013189X035006018
Riolli, L., & Savicki, V. (2006). Impact of fairness, leadership, and coping on strain, burnout,
and turnover in organizational change. International Journal of Stress Management,
13(3), 351-377.
Runté, M. and A.J. Mills. (2006). Cold war, chilly climate: Exploring the roots of gendered
discourse in organization and management theory. Human Relations, 59(5) 695-720.
doi:10.1177/0018726706066174
Seventeenth Master Agreement: Between the Government of the Province of British
Columbia Represented by the BC Public Service Agency and the B.C. Government
and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU), Effective from April 1, 2014 to March 31,
2019. (2014). (Version 140709v1). Retrieved from
http://www.bcgeu.ca/sites/default/files/page/
attachments/17th%20psa%20dec%202015.pdf
Shaver, F. M. (2005). Sex work research: methodological and ethical challenges. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 20, 296-319.
Smith, M. K. (2005). The Functions of Supervision, In M. K. Smith (Last update: September
3, 2009). The encyclopaedia of informal education. Retrieved from
http://www.infed.org/ biblio/functions_of_supervision.htm

137
Smith, L., Foley, P. F., & Chaney, M. P. (2008). Addressing classism, ableism, and
heterosexism in counselor education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(3),
303 – 309. Retrieved from http://library.unbc.ca:2061/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=3&hid=19&sid=571768b2-4875-439f-9752-a0234591853a%40sessionmgr13
Smullens, S. (2012). What I wish I had known: Burnout and self-care in our social work
profession. The New Social Worker, 19(4), 6-9.
Snyder, L. J. & Babins-Wagner, R. (2013). Supervisory Training in Child Welfare: A Quest
for Effectiveness. Report prepared by Calgary Counselling Centre for the Alberta
Centre for Child, Family and Community Research. Retrieved from
http://www.research4
children.org/data/documents/SupervisoryTraininginChildWelfareAQuestforEffective
nesspdf.pdf
Social Sector: KKCFS. (2016, July 1). Retrieved from http://www.ktunaxa.org/kkcfs/
Sutherland S. (1990). Choose your method. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 22(2), 129.
Tang, K., & Peters, H. (2006). Internationalizing the struggle against neo-liberal policy: The
Canadian experience. International Social Work, 49(5), 571-582.
Tittle, Gail (2002). Caseload size in best practice: Literature review. Retrieved from
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Children and Family Research Center
website: http://cfrc.illinois.edu/pubs/lr_20021101_CaseloadSizeInBestPractice.pdf
Thompson, S. A. (2002). My research friend? My friend the researcher? My friend, my
researcher? Mis/informed consent and people with developmental disabilities. In W.
C. Van Den Hoonaard, (1stEd.) Walking the tightrope: ethical issues for qualitative
researchers (pp. 95-106). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Tromski-Klingshirn, D. M. (2006). Should the clinical supervisor be the administrative
supervisor? The ethics versus the reality. The Clinical Supervisor, 25(1/2), 53-67.
doi:10.1300/J001v25n 01_05
Tromski-Klingshirn, D. M., & Davis, T. E. (2007). Supervisees' perceptions of their clinical
supervision: A study of the dual role of clinical and administrative supervisor.
Counselor, Education & Supervision, 46(4), 294-304. Retrieved from
http://library.unbc.ca:2067/ehost/pdf viewer/pdfviewer?sid=0042469d-0dc1-4000a98b-5f6a500e8143%40sessionmgr110& vid=9&hid=104
Tsui, M. (2005). Social work supervision: Contexts and concepts. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.

138
Weinberg, M. (2005). A case for an expanded framework of ethics in practice. Ethics and
Behavior, 15(4), 327-338. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1504_4
Winofsky, E. & Calvert, A. (2012). Interview of Adam Calvert. (pp. 1-16). [Transcript of
interview video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=229x5y_ryNw
Witkin, S. L. (2014). Narrating social work through autoethnography. New York: Columbia
Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). On seeking - and rejecting - validity in qualitative research. In H. F.
Wolcott, Transforming qualitative data: description, analysis, and interpretation (pp.
341-373). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zapf, M. K. (2009). Social work and the environment: Understanding people and place.
Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.