Supervision is an organizational development activity whose result is to ensure the supervisee gets acquainted with an organization's way of working, skills, and the concurrent institutional culture. In this regard, it is appropriate for an organization to develop a supervisor plan to be used in guiding the supervisee as he goes about completing his development course.
The supervision process starts with the building of a professional working relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee. Why this should be the first step in the supervision activity is because doing so defines the working relationship between the supervisor and their participating supervisees (Sellers, Valentino & LeBlanc, 2016). This first step ensures any instances of lack of clarity in the understanding of 'rules of the game' is eliminated to pave the way for effectiveness and professionalism while imbuing respect in the relationship. It also removes possibilities for confusion in the process.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, the supervisor and their supervisee are to agree upon a structured plan for a well-structured competence-based supervision evaluation content. According to Valentino, LeBlanc, and Sellers (2016), this step involves defining the performance expectations with the potency for establishing the entire professional relationship. The action, must, nonetheless, take into account the input of the trainee or supervisee (Noell et al., 2000). It is crucial in underscoring mutuality in a reciprocal give-and-take situation, by, which the supervisor and supervisee build accountability (Agnew, 1998; Turner, Fischer & Luiselli, 2016). It sets out a baseline of what is to be attained in the program.
Third is an evaluation of the impact of the supervision activity. In the context of this assessment of the effectiveness of outcomes, Sanetti and Kratochwill (2009) add that ethical considerations also have to be evaluated. Contents of the BACB model are crucial here since the principle of consent and contract between the supervisor and supervisee must be met to define the working relationship (Sellers, Valentino and LeBlanc, 2016). However, supervisor feedback has to be availed for the evaluation to be practical (Burgi, Whitman & Reid, 1983). Activities in this stage are intended to follow-up and asses the successes or failures of the supervision with a view to better future supervisory activities (Glenn, 1987; Parsons, 1998; Noell et al., 2000). The subsequent and last stage is the follow-up post-certification of the supervisee. A monthly schedule of regular check-ins should then be set up to guide the supervisee in the post-certification step (Burgi, Whitman & Reid, 1983). For effective post-certification follow-up, the supervisor should avail a list of professional contacts to regularly check with the supervisee to ensure they are progressing well post-certification.
References
Agnew, J. L. (1998). The establishing operation in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management , 18 (1), 7-19.
Burgio, L. D., Whitman, T. L., & Reid, D. H. (1983). A participative management approach for improving direct‐care staff performance in an institutional setting. Journal of applied behavior analysis , 16 (1), 37-53.
Glenn, S. S. (1987). Rules as environmental events. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior , 5 , 29.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., & Bocian, K. M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 15 (4), 198-205.
LeBlanc, L. A., & Luiselli, J. K. (2016). Refining supervisory practices in the field of behavior analysis: Introduction to the special section on supervision. Behavior analysis in practice , 9 (4), 271-273.
Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., LaFleur, L. H., Mortenson, B. P., Ranier, D. D., & LeVelle, J. (2000). Increasing intervention implementation in general education following consultation: A comparison of two follow‐up strategies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 33 (3), 271-284.
Parsons, M. B. (1998). A review of procedural acceptability in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management , 18 (2-3), 173-190.
Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review , 38 (4).
Sellers, T. P., Valentino, A. L., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2016). Recommended practices for individual supervision of aspiring behavior analysts. Behavior analysis in practice , 9 (4), 274-286.
Turner, L. B., Fischer, A. J., & Luiselli, J. K. (2016). Towards a competency-based, ethical, and socially valid approach to the supervision of applied behavior analytic trainees. Behavior Analysis in Practice , 9 (4), 287-298.
Valentino, A. L., LeBlanc, L. A., & Sellers, T. P. (2016). The benefits of group supervision and a recommended structure for implementation. Behavior analysis in practice , 9 (4), 320-328.
