ation Conference in Sydney, 8-10 September 2012.
Bannink’s latest publication ’Positive supervision and intervision’ is based on the solution focused paradigm for individual and group supervision sessions. Accordingly, learning is about our success stories as well as other practitioners’ success stories and much less about what did not work or went wrong which may be the traditional experience when a problem solving paradigm is used. Table 1 on page 24 illustrates the clear differences between positive supervisory questions in contrast to more traditional questions that a supervisor may ask their supervisees.
The role of the supervisor therefor is that of someone who builds on what went well, followed by an exploration of how this was achieved and how the practitioner can further develop their expertise. Supervisees are acknowledged as “co-experts” and the supervisor responds only when invited to provide suggestions or advice. Practitioners are encouraged to develop their own enthusiasm for their goals in their work. In their reflection they acknowledge their existing competencies together with an identification of how they can expand these so as to build on their strengt