This article examines supervision in private firms through a survey of both supervisors and supervisees. In private practice, supervision is defined as: (1) overseeing the production of discrete work products, and (2) the instruction that necessarily accompanies task completion. Effective supervision was defined as good human relations and clear communication. Both formal and informal mentoring relationships allow for professional development advice and reflective discourse when deemed necessary by the supervisor.
The supervisor and mentor have two distinct roles. The supervisor directs and inspects the performance of others, whereas the mentor is a wise and trusted counsellor or teacher. A teacher imparts knowledge rather than transmitting skills, most commonly flowing from task supervision. Despite the seemingly stark distinctions between these two roles, the two must act together; they are complementary, and the same person must hold them. Supervision without mentoring is nothing more than mechanical. Similarly, mentoring without supervision might appear more as therapy sessions without sight of the task.
Supervision can be improved by providing insights into the types of supervisory experiences available and exposure to the functional choices that supervisors and supervisees might make. Different supervisory types include differing presence of variables such as communication, organization, attitude and capacity, and external influences. However, ensuring effective supervision requires conformity to a framework that enhances opportunities to set goals, make distinctions and evaluate results. It includes four stages: assessment, discourse, checking in and checking out, and evaluation.
At the assessment stage, supervision proceeds from an assessment of the constraints and opportunities for the supervisor process by way of the organizational setting, for instance, consideration of the resources allocated to supervision. Ultimately, if the parties to the supervisory relationship have thought about what to get out of the supervision and how to achieve it, performance, satisfaction, and learning will be greater. In the next stage – discourse – participants in the supervisory relationship should communicate in order to determine how decisions are made. This takes into consideration ideas, closeness to the material, reputation, intensity of concern, time available and many other factors. Other concerns that increase the learning potential of the supervisory relationship include discussion of: initiative, specificity of instructions, planning, organizational context (i.e., the extent to which firm policies or structures which govern the operation of supervisory relationships can be altered), and learning agenda (i.e., the extent to which parties can distinguish needs by emphasizing thought, action, or feelings on a particular project and subparts of projects). At the third stage – checking in and checking out – the range of supervisory interactions occur between the task definition and task execution, and the parties to the supervisory relationship seek help, clarification, reassurance, or relief. The final stage – evaluation – is far less important than feedback, which is required to evaluate and change behaviour to bring it closer to our goals. Modes of feedback should generally include invitation, objectivity, positivity, detail, and immediacy and should be non-judgmental.
Michael Meltsner, James V Rowan & Daniel J Givelber, “The Bike Tour Leader’s Dilemma: Talking about Supervision” (1989) 13:2 Vt L Rev 399.
Leave a Reply