Prior to starting my master’s degree in higher education, I do not think that I had ever thought deeply about my supervision philosophy. Though I have held a handful of small supervisory roles throughout my career, until recently I had never attempted to articulate what supervising or managing meant to me. What to do, what not to do, and how to interact with my supervisees is something that I feel has always come naturally to me – though not without some trial and error. The theme of my master’s program though, is to reflect, learn, and grow, and as a result, I have been reflecting on my values, my own growth, on what I do and who I am in the workplace, and in life. 

Supervision is more than supervising. It is more than simply managing employees. And, it is more than simply leading. It is not something that we are formally taught how to do, but rather we learn how to supervise through lived experience. We learn from our parents, and our own supervisors, and we fold these experiences in with our own personal styles and beliefs about how to work with each other. To me, supervision is a form of mentorship. Although this may not be possible in all supervisory roles, I feel that there is a distinct intersection, without which, leaves supervisees lacking. 

Although distinctly different in scope, my leadership and supervision philosophies are one in the same: work together to do good. While leadership and supervision are neither synonymous nor interdependent on one another, I believe they share the same foundation: we are all in this world together, and we need to lift each other up to succeed. While I feel that supervisors who I remember fondly have also been great leaders, it has more often been the case that one side or the other is lacking. As a supervisor, I have tried to also be a leader.

In my master’s program, we dedicate a large amount of time studying theory. This has always been something of a struggle for me, as I desire tangible evidence. I like proof, and hard science, and irrefutable facts. I like black and white – but as any good social scientist or student affairs professional knows, we live in a world of greys. A never-ending gradient of uncertainty and speculation and educated guesses. When a theory or a model created by a theorist or philosopher actually resonates with me and makes sense, I consider that to be a powerful experience. There are few that have, but one happens to be a model of supervision created by none other than one of my professors and her colleagues. While I will not go into the nuts and bolts of their research study and mechanics, I will briefly outline the basis of the model.

Wilson, McCallum, and Shupp (2019) created the Inclusive Supervision model with three basic tenants: cultivating holistic development, demonstrating vulnerability, and building capacity in others – all of which sit atop a strong foundation of creating safe spaces. This model resonates with me because it incorporates all these aspects under the umbrella of socially just, inclusive, and multiculturally competent interactions with the people you supervise. The researchers humanize supervision in a way that I find refreshing, and which is in direct compliment to my beliefs on working with others. In my experiences as a supervisor, I have sought to do all of these things: first and foremost, to create a safe space for my supervisees to feel comfortable with being honest and real with me. This is accomplished by outwardly showing my appreciation for all identities, and by openly valuing individuality and difference. I have been personally vulnerable and established connections with my staff by listening actively and inviting open dialogue. I have done my best to instill confidence and lead by example while working to accommodate for personality, learning, and work styles. I have tried to mentor and develop the strengths of those I have supervised in order to harness the power of their capabilities for the betterment of their person, the team, the job, and ultimately, the world. 

Although these tenants, and this foundation have informally been a part of my praxis, it was enlightening to learn about the model of Inclusive Supervision (Wilson, McCullum & Shupp, 2019). Seeing myself reflected in a formalized way feels like it has given my praxis a backbone. While I have attempted this form of supervision organically, I feel that what these researchers have is something that I can structure my praxis around going forward in a much more intentional way. While my basic supervision philosophy will always be simple at its core of working together to do good, I am fortunate to have a model and theory to flesh out my own understanding of how to accomplish that simple vision.