What does effective supervision look like? – some models for practice
9th July 2026
Social workers don’t need supervision, they need effective support.
(David Wilkins, 2019)
Image from lead-academy.org
Introduction
After many years of reading about the evidence base and theory of supervision, I have concluded that it is a complex phenomenon and a social construct which means different things to different people. This fourth article on The Supervision Space, is the last building block to setting out some of the foundations of knowledge about social work supervision. It follows the other articles on ‘becoming a supervisor’ and ‘supervision as a state of the art’ in England.
This article looks at some models for supervision that I have selected as personal favourites and highlights how these might intersect to form a holistic picture that speaks more widely than just one lens. The article starts with exploring the evidence and theory base for supervision both internationally and a UK focus. This progresses to take an inclusive lens, exploring models from an anti-racism and neuro-inclusivity perspective. We then consider a model which arguably pulls the heart of these together by focusing on relationship-based supervision. As usual, we end with a summary of key points and some reflective questions to help you to digest the content.
The international evidence and theory base
Although there is a rapidly growing evidence base for supervision practice, little is still known about what actually works, why it works, what difference it makes, and how it benefits the various stake holders.
Historically, several authors have reviewed the evidence base for social work supervision and concluded that this is weak, with a dearth of studies of any quality (Spence et al., 2001; Bogo and McKnight, 2006; Mor Barak et al., 2009; Carpenter et al., 2013; O’Donoghue and Tsui, 2015; O’Donoghue et al., 2018; Wilkins, 2019).
O’Donoghue et al. (2018) have proposed an ‘evidence-informed supervision model’, which is essentially a theoretical model, constructed from the research findings from international supervision research, stemming back to 1958. Despite their acknowledgement of the weakness of evidence quality, and what indeed can be classed as ‘evidence’, their substantial review of the research base identified five themes which essentially make up the proposed model set out below.
Image adapted from O’Donoghue et al. (2018)
The authors suggest that “the evidence-informed model of social work supervision involves a dynamic interrelationship between all of the five aspects, that is contingent upon the organisational and professional practice setting, the supervisee, supervisor and issues presented in the supervision session” (p. 352). This indicates that it may have capacity to challenge the discourse of the one-to-one meeting and other process driven concepts and embrace the all-important wider contextual influences known about the challenges of providing good supervision.
Some English models
Wilkins’ 3D Model of Support
David Wilkins is a leading researcher into supervision in children and families social work in England and has written several papers reporting research findings. In 2019 he wrote a key paper bringing together a new working theory of supervision based on his own review of the research.
In 2018, Wilkins challenged the discourse of social work supervision practice in England and proposed a radical change to even using the language ‘supervision’. Instead, he suggested that “the current focus on the provision of reflective supervision, may be preventing us from thinking more broadly and creatively about what support local authority child and family social workers need and how best to provide it” (Wilkins, 2018, p. 165). Taking into account wider system influences, both external to and implicit within organisations, Wilkins proposed a 3D model of ‘support’, which is illustrated below:
Image from Department for Education funded Practice Supervisor Development Programme (2019)
The 3D model sets out three dimensions of support which are:
Emotional support
Professional support
Management oversight
Within these, are suggested ways of providing support such as coaching, peer supervision, group supervision and counselling. Whilst this model is untested empirically, it does acknowledge how dynamic supervision needs to be to meet the needs of practitioners and suggests what a change of supervision culture could look like to move away from a ‘surveillance culture’, with tangible activities recommended for achieving this.
Morrison’s Integrated model
The late Tony Morrison is one of the most well-known scholars and teachers about supervision in England. In 2005 he published his ‘integrated model’ for supervision, which was further developed in Morrisons work with his colleague Jane Wonnacott (2011). Also colloquially known as the ‘4x4x4 model’ it has become one of the most popular supervision models in the UK, due to its dynamic conceptualisation of supervision, which is important for considering the context of English practice and policy specifically. The model is illustrated below:
Image adapted from Wonnacott (2011)
The ‘four’ elements of ‘four’ set out in Morrison’s model can be summarised from the middle of the diagram outwards, as follows:
4 stakeholders of supervision – these are the groups of people that supervision arguably helps. The model invites us to consider how supervision may help external stakeholders such as people who use services and partners from the multi-agency team, in addition to the organisation and its staff.
4 stage process for reflection – this is based on Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle and is a framework suggested for the process of reflective discussion, to encourage practitioners to avoid the ‘quick fix’ of moving from case description to action and spending time reflecting and analysing.
4 functions of supervision – This reflects the three main functions of supervision agreed globally as ‘management’, ‘education’ and ‘support’, to which Morrison has added ‘mediation’ to acknowledge the England specific practice of the line manager also being the supervisor and the role being to mediate between the supervisee and the organisation.
4 cornerstones of supervision – Morrison and Wonnacott (2010) added this layer to the model to set out some requirements for organisations to achieve good supervision practice. The important aspect this highlights is the significance of a ‘supervision agreement’ which underpins the supervision relationship.
Embracing diversity, equity and inclusion
Our core social work values of social justice and human rights require us as supervisors to continually review our position in terms of anti-racist, anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practice. The more generic models shared so far do not specify the importance of the supervision relationship and the dynamics which will arise within the supervision dyad itself. This is crucial to effective supervision.
As discussed in the previous article on becoming a good supervisor, understanding your own unique self and being curious about that of your supervisees is essential. The article on supervision research and practice in England also acknowledged the central importance of the supervision relationship itself, of which understanding aspects of identity are necessary in order to do the foundational work required to form a working alliance.
Tedam’s Mandela Model
The Mandela Model was originally developed by Professor Prospera Tedam (2013) from her doctoral research. It was devised to uncover synergies between the practice placement experiences of Black African students, linked to their relationship with their practice educator. The model is as follows:
Imaged based on Tedam (2013) model
MANDELA is an acronym for the key headings set out in the model which helpfully draws together some ways of exploring supervisees’ personal and professional experiences and identity, as well as inviting supervisors to ‘make time’ to ‘acknowledge needs’.
The model incorporates anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice, and together with my colleague Shabnam Ahmed (Ahmed and Williams, 2024) we have recommended it, overlayed with Morrison’s integrated model, as useful for achieving anti-racist supervision. This would also be a helpful model for good supervision generally, to explore things for supervisees such as neuro-diversity or access to work requirements, religious needs or the needs of parents and carers.
Smith’s Neuroinclusive Model
In 2025 my colleague Florence Smith developed the neuroinclusive model for supervision, based on her experiences as a neurodivergent social worker, supervisor and practice educator. We then developed some of the ideas from the model in conversation together, which we later wrote about together (Smith and Williams, 2026 [forthcoming]).
The model builds upon the established reflective framework of ‘What? So What? Now What?’, originally developed by Terry Borton (1970) and later adapted for reflective practice by Driscoll (1994) and Rolfe et al (2001). It is set out below:
Neuroinclusive supervision model from Smith and Williams (2026)
Central to the model is the ‘individual’ supervisee. The different components of the model in summary are:
What? – Individual needs – what are these in relation to neurodivergence?
So What? – Impact – what is the impact of these needs on your work and wellbeing?
Now What – Resources – what do you need to overcome the impact at work?
This structured yet accessible model encourages supervisors to engage in meaningful dialogue, allowing them to better understand the complexities of neurodivergence and the intersectionality of identities within the context of social work education and practice. Through this framework, supervisors can collaboratively explore individual needs, assess the impact of those needs within professional environments, and develop tailored, evolving strategies for support, access to work and reasonable adjustments.
Ahmed’s 6Rs Model
In 2021 my colleague Shabnam Ahmed developed her 6 R model for supervision, which she demonstrates how to exercise it here on her You Tube channel, School of Shabs. The model is illustrated below.
Image based on Ahmed (2021) model (adapted)
What I particularly like about this model is that the notion of ‘relationship’ is so central to it. It also really resonates with my own research in terms of the importance of things such as ‘reciprocity’ and ‘responsibility’ within the relational task of supervision. Shabs is an inspiring fellow supervision geek, and we have spent a lot of time thinking about the notion that ‘race’ could be a 7th R that threads through her model. She’s busy writing future publications currently but one day I hope we can write about more of our ideas together, including this one.
Summary of key points
Although the international research evidence base into supervision has some weakness, there are some clear theoretical frameworks to inform good practice
It can be helpful to frame supervision models as ‘support’ for practitioners and practice, in order to move away from a surveillance culture.
Models that embrace specific functions of English social work practice are important for informing policy and practice culture.
Whilst generic models help us to understand key functions, task and process of supervision it is also important to consider models which are inclusive and embrace diversity.
In order to ensure good relationship based practice, you need models for supervision where relationships are central.
Reflective questions
What have you learnt from reading this blog today?
What struck you the most?
What will you take away and think about more deeply?
What impact might this/has this had on your own practice and the people you work with i.e. your supervisees or people who use services?
What might they say they have noticed about you since you read the blog?
Who might you have a peer reflection with about your learning from the blog i.e a colleague or your manager? Or your team?
Ahmed, S. and Williams, J. (2025) ‘Co-Creating a Model for Anti-Racist Supervision’. In, N. Jude, T. Moore and G. Simango (eds) The Anti-racist Social Worker in Practice. London: Routledge.
Carpenter, J., Webb, C.M. and 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), pp. 1843-1853.
Bogo, M., and McKnight, K. (2006) Clinical supervision in social work: A review of the research literature. The Clinical Supervisor, 24(1–2), pp. 49–67.
Driscoll, J. (1994). Reflective practice for practice. Senior Nurse, 13(1), 47–50.
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Mor Barak, M. E., Travis, D. A., Pyun, H., and Xie, B. (2009) The impact of supervision on worker outcomes: A meta-analysis. The Social Service Review, 83(1), pp. 3–32.
Morrison, T. (2005) Staff Supervision in Social Care. (revised edition). Brighton: Pavillion.
O’Donoghue, K. and Tsui, M. (2015) Social Work Supervision Research (1970-2010): The Way We Were and the Way Ahead. British Journal of Social Work, 45, pp. 616-633.
O’Donoghue, K., Wong, Yuh Ju, P., and Tsui, M. (2018) Constructing an evidence-informed social work supervision model, European Journal of Social Work, 21 (3), pp. 348-358.
Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., & Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection in nursing and the helping professions: A user’s guide. Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, F. and Williams, J. (2026 – forthcoming) ‘What? So What? Now What? – Developing a reflexive model for neuroinclusive supervision relationships’. In, H. Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, L. Deacon and J. Guthrie (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Neuro-Inclusive Social Work. London: Palgrave.
Spence, S. H., Wilson, J., Kavanagh, D., Strong, J., and Worrall, L. (2001) Clinical supervision in four mental health professions: A review of the evidence. Behaviour Change, 18(3), pp. 135–155.
Tedam, P. (2013). The MANDELA model of practice learning: An old present in new wrapping? Journal of Practice teaching and Learning, 11(2), 60-76.
Wilkins, D. (2018) Does reflective supervision have a future in English local authority child and family social work? Journal of Children’s Services, 12 (2-3), pp. 164-173.
Wilkins, D. (2019) Social work supervision in child and family services: Developing a working theory of how and why it works, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 31(3), pp.7-19.
Wilkins, D. (2019) PSDP—Resources and Tools: A 3D model – forms of support for social workers. Research in Practice: PSDP.
Wonnacott, J. (2011) Mastering social work supervision. London: Jessica Kingsley
Leave a Reply