Several authors almost identify ethics in supervision with the ethics of social work. Both share certain values, principles, and ethical responsibilities toward oneself, clients, colleagues, the workplace, the profession, and society. Supervision as a distinctive method of social work and a specific activity of social workers also requires special ethical attention. Some national deontological codes of social work explicitly state ethical principles that specifically address supervision (e.g. the American code of ethics /NASW, 2008/; the Canadian guide to ethical practice /CASW, 2005/; the Australian code of ethics /AASW, 2002/ and others). The aim of this contribution is to point out some key values, principles, and ethical emphases of supervision that should also be given attention in Slovakia.
Supervision and Values
The distinctiveness of supervision derives primarily from its specific goals and functions. More than sixty years ago, Robinson (1949) emphasized the educational goals of supervision in social work. Somewhat later, its managerial (administrative) aspects began to be emphasized, including efforts to control and coordinate social workers in the performance of their profession. Kadushin (1976) added a supportive function to these two, which includes emotional support and support in work-related difficulties (Shulman, In: Edwards et al., 2004, p. 2373). More specifically formulated definitions and goals of supervision usually build on these three basic functions. Supervision is a systematic activity, directed and planned so as to help workers perform their roles more effectively through the transfer and modification of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Maroon et al., 2007, p. 7). Further goals of supervision include reflection and verification of the correctness of procedures in practice, providing feedback, correcting ineffective procedures, uncovering unacknowledged connections, feelings and emotions affecting work with clients, expanding possibilities and alternatives in practice (new paths, perspectives, and solutions), learning new skills, and preventing harm to clients by the counselor (cf. Bednářová, Pelech, 2003, pp. 68-71). Last but not least, supervision can be considered one form of continuing education (Schavel, 2004, p. 749).
Among the most important ethical issues of contemporary helping professions is the examination of values (cf. Mátel, 2010b, p. 132). In social work, values determine both the nature of the work and the nature of the relationship between worker and client, between colleagues, and between the profession and the wider society. They are also essential in solving ethical problems and dilemmas. Therefore, most deontological codes begin by identifying and presenting those values that are considered key for the given profession. These values then become an integral part of the more specific ethical principles and responsibilities of the social worker toward oneself, clients, colleagues, the workplace, the profession, and society. The question we ask in this contribution is: which values can we designate as key in supervision? The authors wish to point out three values that can be designated as key in supervision. These are competence, the importance of human relationships, and trust. The methodological basis for this claim was textual analysis of selected deontological codes and professional literature, as well as the method of observing the current state of supervision in Slovakia.
Competence
The basic requirement for someone to be able to perform supervision is proper qualification, which includes completion of an accredited supervisory training program, as well as other conditions set by the professional association of supervisors (in Slovakia ASSP). Several ethical codes of social work explicitly state that supervisors should work within the limits of their competence (e.g. NASW, 2008; CASW, 2005). In the British and Australian code of ethics (2002), we find the note that the supervisor role is defined as educational, supportive, developmental, and focused on the activity of the social worker. If a supervisee requests therapy, this request is to be entrusted to another competent professional, i.e. a therapist. The ethical guideline of the European Association for Supervision (EAN) states, in addition to the prohibition of providing any kind of psychotherapy as a substitute for or supplement to supervision, a clarification regarding the supervisee's personal (private) statements. These are to be discussed within supervision only in terms of their impact on clients or for other professional reasons. In Slovakia, there is currently also a need for a more consistent distinction between the role of supervisor and that of therapist or psychologist.
Part of the value of competence in social work is the development and improvement of one's professional qualification. Social workers should continuously strive to grow in professional knowledge and skills and to apply them in practice. In an analogous connection with supervisors, something similar applies, while the conditio sine qua non of a developing supervisor's competence should be his or her own supersupervision. Supervision in Slovakia has moved precisely in this direction, which is a good sign for the process of its further improvement and development.
The Importance of Human Relationships
The importance of human relationships is among the six key values of social work identified in the American code of ethics. It is also related to the following ethical principles: “Social workers recognize the central importance of human relationships. For them, understanding relationships between people is necessary, as these are an important tool for change. In doing so, they seek to engage people in partnership in the helping process” (NASW, 2008). Although most national ethical codes have not yet accepted the importance of human relationships as a key value of social work, these are increasingly coming to the attention of social work almost throughout the world. At the last World Conference of Social Work and Social Development in Hong Kong, China (June 2010), the importance of human relationships was recognized among the four main themes that will be thoroughly reflected on in the coming months and will become the subject of the next world conference (Stockholm, 2012). All theories of social work recognize the importance of relationships. Yet some theorists and clinical social workers regard human relationships as a key element of the entire field of social work and counseling. According to them, the very relationship between the social worker and the client brings about change. The quality of the personal relationship matters more than the specific techniques used, which determine the satisfaction and effect of the intervention (Howe, 2009, p. 156).
The importance of human relationships is among the key values of supervision in social work. The model of relationship-based supervision is close to the theory of “relationship-based social work.” Supervision, like counseling and therapy, is a co-created process within a relationship (Hawkins, Shohet, 2004, p. 44). The importance of the “context of positive relationships” was also emphasized by Kadushin (1976, p. 21). The relationship between supervisor and supervisee is to some extent a parallel to the relationship between social worker and client, while it is constituted by three basic elements: 1. Connection, 2. Trust, 3. Care (cf. Shulman, In: Edwards et al., 2004, p. 2373). It is precisely the quality of the personal relationship between supervisor and supervisee that affects the quality of the supervision process and its benefit for all participants.
Ethical responsibility in supervision is realized in several relational frameworks, as clearly expressed by Figure 1. The supervisor is in mutual dynamic relationships with the supervisee, or with individual members of the supervision group, further with the commissioning party of supervision (if not identical with the supervisee), with the profession and the professional community. In addition, it is necessary in supervision to take into account the mutual relationships among members of the supervision group and, last but not least, the relationships of the supervised social workers to clients.
Ethical principles based on the importance of human relationships are associated with respect for the full autonomy of the supervisee, his or her human dignity, and the right to make one’s own decisions. Ethical risks are connected with the abuse of the supervisor's role, authority, and power for his or her own benefit, thereby disrupting the relational balance among the participants in the supervision process and increasing the risk of harm to the supervisee. According to Havrdová (2008, p. 44), supervision does not include any form of coercion or oppression, manipulation or persuasion that pushes the supervisee in the direction of the supervisor's judgment or narcissistic needs. Likewise, the supervisor should avoid exercising a condescending superiority, for example by rational debate instead of dialogue, or by giving advice without the supervisee's explicit wish. An important attribute of all types of relationships in the supervision process is trust, which we can designate as another key value.
Trust in the Supervisory Relationship
In the supervisory relationship, the relationship between the social worker and clients is analyzed in an atmosphere of safety and trust. Through supervision, the counselor shares part of the responsibility for work with clients. Its main goal is the professional and personal growth of workers in a safe atmosphere of trust (Mátel, 2010a, p. 94).
Respect for the value of trust is connected with the protection of personal data, as well as all information that the supervisor has learned from the supervisee (or members of the supervision group). Information to a third party is possible only with the explicit informed consent of the supervisee or of all members of the supervision group. If even one member of the supervision group expresses disagreement, this is binding for the supervisor and the other members of the group.
Trust in supervision also touches on the relational framework of the supervised social worker or counselor with service users. Barker (2003) states that supervisors often discuss various cases with social workers, discuss social assessment, the intervention plan, and evaluate progress. The supervisory relationship between supervisor and supervisee directly affects the relationship between the social worker and the client. According to the EAN Ethical Guidelines, the primary duty of supervisors is to protect the supervisee and his or her clients. From the perspective of ethics, an important aspect of social work is trust between the service provider, or social worker or counselor, and the client itself. Many of the facts that the social worker learns from the client during the counseling relationship fall within the area of confidentiality. Providing any information to a third party without the client's informed consent can fundamentally disrupt this confidential relationship. Before social counselors present a particular client's case in supervision, they need to obtain informed consent from the person concerned (the EAN states, with regard to the form, “written consent”). This ethical standard expresses a high sensitivity to the strict confidentiality of all information that the social counselor learned from the client.
Special emphasis must be placed on maintaining confidentiality in the evaluation of supervision and in preparing a report on the supervision carried out for the commissioning party, if this is the employer or founder of the institution whose employees are in the supervision process. The Canadian code of ethics (CASW, 2005) states that social workers who provide supervision are to evaluate the supervisory process honestly, respectfully, and in accordance with workplace expectations. The American code of ethics (2008, art. 3.01d) does not state the last requirement, which is significant in preventing unjustified demands from commissioning parties of supervision. In carrying out supervision in Slovakia, we may encounter certain requests for the supervisor to inform the commissioning party (“the one who pays for it”) about the supervisees... This may involve ignorance regarding the essence and purpose of supervision, but also possible misuse of supervision by a managerial worker. Ethical responsibility in such cases lies primarily with the supervisor. He or she is the one who must clearly, understandably, and directly communicate to the commissioning party that, from an ethical point of view, he or she cannot inform them about facts learned within the supervision process without the consent of the supervisees, or of all members of the supervision group. This position must be maintained even if the implementation of the order - and thus also the financial income - were conditioned on informing the commissioning party. The personality and professionalism of the supervisor are revealed precisely in such cases, when he or she must refuse a supervision offer or get into conflict with the employer in protecting the rights of his or her clients. On the other hand, the supervisor's relationship with the commissioning party also requires work-ethical responsibility. Havrdová (2008) points out that the supervisor should not yield to tension in such a way as to enter into a coalition (together with the supervisee) against the employer or any member of the organization, or by taking over responsibility instead of the manager.
In the American code of ethics (NASW, 2008), with regard to supervisors in social work, it is explicitly stated that they are to set clear, appropriate, culturally sensitive boundaries and must not engage in any dual or multiple relationships with supervisees in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm. The American and Australian code of ethics (2002) specifically label as unethical any form of sexual contact between a supervisor and a female supervisee, or between a female supervisor and a male supervisee, on the grounds that it involves a disruption of the reliability and trust of professional roles, and an unequal distribution of power and authority in the process of supporting social workers. Other forms of dual or multiple relationships include personal, family, religious, political, or business relationships. These can be potentially problematic due to the possible abuse of the supervisor's authority over the supervisee and the risks of harm to the latter (cf. Reamer, 1998, pp. 154-6). The EAN ethical guidelines state in this regard that if, for any reason, the supervisor's objectivity or ability to make professional judgments is limited, the supervisory relationship is to be terminated.
Conclusion
The currently valid code of ethics for social workers in Slovakia (1997) does not pay any attention to supervision. Although many authors almost identify ethics in supervision with the ethics of social work, in the present contribution we have pointed out the specific features of supervision as a distinctive method of social work, which require special ethical attention. In particular, we have pointed out the key values of competence, the importance of human relationships, and trust. This was not a systematic comprehensive list, but rather a proposal for discussion regarding the need to identify the key values and principles of supervision. We propose that, in revising the code of ethics for social workers in Slovakia, special attention be paid to supervision. We recommend that during supervisory training, the topic of “ethics in supervision” be given more specific attention.
Authors: Andrej MÁTEL, Tibor ROMANThe authors work as supervisors and serve as senior assistants at the St. Elizabeth University of Health and Social Work in Bratislava
List of Bibliographic References
Australian Association of Social Workers. 2002. 2nd Ed. Code of Ethics. Canberra : AASW, 33 s. ISBN 0-909255-32-6. BARKER, R. L. 2003. The Social Work Dictionary. 5th Ed. Washington, DC : National Association of Social Workers, 2003. 493 s. ISBN 0-87101-355-X. BEDNÁŘOVÁ, Z. – PELECH, L. 2003. Slabikář sociální práce na ulici. Brno : Doplněk, 2003. 102 s. ISBN 80-7239-148-9. British Association of Social Workers. 2002. The Code of Ethics for Social Work. Birmingham : BASW, 2002. 16 s. Canadian Association of Social Workers. 2005. Guidelines for Ethical Practice. Ottawa : CASW, 2005. European Association for Supervision. Ethical guidelines. [cited 2010-10-09]. Available on the internet: . HAVRDOVÁ, Z. – HAJNÝ, M. et al. 2008. Praktická supervize. Praha : Galén, 2008. 213 s. HAWKINS, P. – SHOHET, R. 2004. Supervize v pomáhajících profesích. Praha : Portál, 2004. 202 s. ISBN 80-7178-715-9. HOWE, D. 2009. A Brief Introduction to Social Work Theory. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 224 s. ISBN 978-0-230-23312-6. KADUSHIN, A. 1976. Supervision in Social Work. New York : Columbia University Press. 486 s. ISBN 0-23103-657-4. MAROON, I. – MATOUŠEK, O. – PAZLAROVÁ , H. 2007. Vzdělávání studentů sociální práce v terénu. Model pro supervizi. Praha : Karolinum, 2007. 142 s. ISBN 978-80-246-1307-9. MÁTEL, A. a kol. 2010a. Etika sociálnej práce. Bratislava : VŠZaSP sv. Alžbety, 2010. 183 s. ISBN 978-80-89271-85-6. MÁTEL, A. 2010b. Etické hodnoty a princípy relevantné pre sociálnu prácu s rómskym etnikom. In: Zborník z vedeckej konferencie s medzinárodnou účasťou „Dialóg ako cesta spolužitia“, Ružomberok : Verbum, 2010. ISBN 978-80-8084-538-4, s. 132-138. National Association of Social Workers. 2008. Code of Ethics. Washington : NASW, 2008. REAMER, F. G. 1998. Ethical Standards in Social Work. Washington, DC : NASW, 1998. 307 s. ISBN 0-87101-293-6. SCHAVEL, M. 2004. Supervízia ako prostriedok ďalšieho vzdelávania sociálnych pracovníkov. In: Zborník príspevkov z vedeckej konferencie s medzinárodnou účasťou „Kvalita života a rovnosť príležitostí – z aspektu vzdelávania dospelých a sociálnej práce“, Prešov : FF PU, 2004. ISBN 80-8068-425-1, s. 748-754. SCHULMAN, L. 2004. Supervision and Consultation. In EDWARDS, R. L. Encyclopedia of Social Work. 19th Ed. Washington, DC : NASW, 2004. ISBN 0-87101-256-1, s. 2373-2379.
