C4 Innovations

Trauma-Informed Supervision: What is it?

An episode of “Changing the Conversation” podcast

Ken Kraybill and host Ashley Stewart discuss trauma-informed supervision.

February 6, 2023

[Music]

Ashley Stewart, Host (00:05): Hello and welcome to Changing the Conversation. I’m your host, Ashley Stewart, and our topic for today is trauma-informed supervision, really getting clarity around what trauma-informed supervision is. My guest today is Ken Kraybill calling in from Seattle, Washington. Ken is an MSW, and he is a senior trainer at C4 Innovations and does incredible work in motivational interviewing and trauma-informed supervision. Ken, thanks for being with us today.

Ken Kraybill, Guest (00:35): Thanks, Ashley. I’m excited to do this with you today.

Ashley (00:38): Awesome. Ken, you know I’m really passionate about trauma-informed supervision. I know that you’re really passionate about trauma-informed supervision. In fact, that’s kind of where our work began to intersect. I’m really thrilled to have this space. A lot of people know what trauma is, or they know about trauma maybe, but can you get us started by defining trauma?

Ken (01:03): Yeah, I think there are some misconceptions about it in that we often think of trauma as an event, and there are trauma inducing events that happen in our lives, but the trauma itself is actually what happens inside of us. It’s what happens in terms of how it impacts us. I’ve been reading Gabor Maté’s book, he pretty recently published The Myth of Normal, and he points out in that book that trauma itself from its Greek origin means wound. I really find that compelling because I think that it’s that deep woundedness or that inner injury that happens that is really what the trauma is, and it impacts our entire bodies. It impacts our whole spirits and our minds and the whole person event, if you will. It’s communal. It’s not just personal. Yeah, I think the traumatic inducing events that happen can come from lots of different places.

(02:01): The fact is that we all live in some kind of a spectrum of trauma experience. None of us are immune from it, but the impact of it, I think, has varying impacts on us. Of course, it depends on the severity of the events that might have induced it, but we’re talking everything from major disasters to accidents to horrific violence. In this day right now, we think about Tyre Nichols and the incredible impact that that is having on his family, on our whole kind of nation and hopefully will result in some things that will increase our awareness of the horrific violence that we witness day in, day out through wars as well and through other incidences that has a huge impact on us, but it’s also insidious. It’s stuff that happens that particularly people of color experience around marginalization and objectification and dehumanization, and there’s historic and cross-generational trauma.

(03:06): Like you said, it’s a big, big topic, but it’s endemic to our lives, and it’s not an exception. Trauma simply exists, and thus I think we need to be able to know how to address it and help find healing. I’ll leave it there. How about you? I’d love to hear your take on this.

Ashley (03:26): Yeah, Ken, I think that part that you bring up or that you honor about trauma and identifying it as the wound and not the event is really important to acknowledge and you bring in Tyre Nichols, the horrific murder of Tyre Nichols that is with my identities is something that’s so heavy on my heart thinking about the mass shootings in California. These identity centered forms of identity-based trauma, which is where my work is. Looking at historical trauma, insidious trauma, intergenerational trauma, acculturative stress, race-based traumatic stress. I think the power of identifying it as the wound, not the injury, if you will, is that when you have a wound or a part of your body that is repeatedly wounded, there can develop some numbness to the event. The scarring and the tissue and the wound is still a wound until we take time to pause for it and nurture it.

(04:31): I think that as I process through the importance of leaning into trauma in every space that we’re in, like you said, it’s endemic in every space that we’re in. It’s really about giving grace time and space for that wound. I think helping people understand that it is how it’s processed in the body and how just like a wound that heals in and on our bodies, it looks different for each and every person. Creating that space for that to occur, for that healing to occur, to have that repeated and ongoing exposure to harm again and again and again is so necessary. If we thought of it that way, how much more loving and gentle would we be with those wounds? I think that’s a great point, Ken.

Ken (05:16): What you’re saying, Ashley, just makes so much sense. I guess I would just add that once that wounding has happened, it never gets completely healed. That is to say that there’s always some scar tissue or there’s some remembering. That’s part of the grieving that comes along with this woundedness too, is that we grieve what has been lost. Now you and I both know that we are strong believers in recovery and healing and all of that, but that doesn’t mean that it’s poof gone. These things impact us for life. If you leave that wound sort of continuing to seep, it will get infected. If we want to use that analogy, then it will just go haywire. The scarring is a form of healing, but it’s also a form of a remembering of hurt that happened as well. Yeah, interesting.

Ashley (06:08): Yeah, so good. Even as you bring in the word grief, it reminds me you can have grief that’s associated with something that you experience that is experienced in the body as trauma. We can also grieve things that are just changing and transitioning in our lives that might not necessarily always be for something bad or horrific has happened, but grief is just a part of life too, as you can grieve things changing in your life, special things evolving in your life. I think that’s a nice reminder to put in there as well.

Ken (06:46): One aspect of trauma too, and I hadn’t really thought of this until more recently, is that it’s not only a result of the bad things that happened to us, but oftentimes it’s the result of things that have been withheld from us and we’ve not had the opportunity, if you will, to experience. Neglect of course would be a good example of that in early childhood, but it happens at all levels.

Ashley (07:10): We might need another podcast because you just touched on something so important that I really think we need to process through a little more. I do want us to also process through supervision, right? Because in this space we’re talking about trauma-informed supervision. Most people have had supervisors with varying levels of experiences, some exceptional and some with a lot of opportunity for growth. However, there’s kind of an art to supervision. I’m wondering from your perspective, what is that art of supervision?

Ken (07:44): Yeah. I love that you used the word art because I think that’s absolutely right on. Art of course does require skill and art also requires a certain attitude set and mindset, and it’s bringing your whole self forward. I think of supervision as first and foremost being human, and then being in a relationship in where you try to bring your whole self forward. Sometimes that’s your best self. Sometimes it’s not, but it’s having that level of transparency, consistency, if you will. I’ve always been struck by what I was taught early on of being the fundamental purpose of supervision, and that is to ensure the highest quality of client care. I’m talking clinical supervision here, and it might apply to others who are not doing direct service to providing the best kind of quality of work.

(08:39): That has always struck me because, yes, we do focus on the supervisee, and we do focus on helping them do the best work they can, but it’s not for them and for their growth so much. It is secondarily, but primarily it is for the clients. Somehow that has created for me an ability to make it easier to provide feedback and to have hard conversations when needed, but also to then support people. What are your thoughts?

Ashley (09:08): I do think it’s an art. I do think it’s an art. When I think of supervision or even if I’ve been in an interview or something and someone has asked, “How do you supervise or how do you manage?” I kind of wrestle with this, that in some ways it’s really individualized and then in some ways it’s about consistency. People will say, “Is it better to be consistent and have a standardized approach to supervision or to be malleable and to adjust to individuals?” For me, supervision is really about understanding who we’re supervising and more so than that, understanding each of our dynamics as a team. What are the varying levels of strengths and opportunities for growth? How do we lean most lean into those strengths? For example, I have a lot of strengths, and then there’s also some places where I can benefit from the strengths of others.

(10:02): We don’t need to necessarily frame it as these shortcomings or these weaknesses, but my strengths are just in a different place. If I can appreciate that about myself, then how do I focus and nurture those strengths of the people who I have the opportunity to supervise so that our team can have all the strengths it can hold and more. For me, supervision is about, yes, I absolutely agree, getting the best outcome. I think one of the ways that we get the best outcome is by pouring into the best of the people who are part of our team. That’s what comes to my mind.

Ken (10:38): I love the way you say that, pouring into the best. There’s actually some very interesting research that’s been done by the Gallup folks, these massive research studies, and they talk about, first of all, hiring people for talent and their strengths, not for their experience necessarily or their accomplishments, but then when that person’s put into a work situation, helping them find the place where they can shine, where they can utilize those strengths and utilize their skills. They don’t say ignore deficits, but they also say don’t try to fix people’s deficits because, well, it might work a little bit, but it’s sort of not a very good use of time, if you will, and acknowledge that people will come with certain deficits, whether that’s in knowledge or skill or whatever that is. Again, it’s treating people as human, but giving them the best opportunity, as you say, to put their best foot forward. Absolutely.

(11:37): As you say, we can’t standardize our approach to this. We can standardize our principles I think and our way that we want to come forward as supervisors in terms of our attitude and skills. From there on out, then each encounter in a supervisory way is kind of a dance and not the kind of dance that’s pre-formed. Right? It’s a little more spontaneous.

Ashley (12:05): It’s not choreographed. Even in some cases where we do have choreographed, there’s personality and style and flair that comes into it that makes it magical, makes it art. Now, you’ve mentioned some great resources so far, and I think we should have an opportunity to process through some of those resources a little bit more. We can do another podcast on that, but I do especially love that point that you make about not leaning into the deficit. That’s something that I’ve learned a lot about different types of leadership and management and supervision resources as well. One thing that comes to mind for me is we’ve talked about trauma, we’ve talked about supervision, but we also talked about trauma-informed supervision. I’m wondering to you, how does that differ, if it does at all, from generalized supervisory practices? Is not all supervision intended to be trauma-informed, or is that a principle, a value of supervision?

Ken (13:10): In my own mind, in my perfect world, all supervision would be trauma-informed, but we know it’s not. And we know that historically, traditionally supervisory practice has looked much more like a watchdog type of oversight. Some have called it snooper vision instead of supervision, but it’s focused on catching people in their mistakes or focusing on fixing their deficits. It’s a lot more about directing, controlling, managing, making sure the outcomes come out because probably somebody’s sitting on that supervisor’s shoulder saying, this is what needs to come out and happen. And so the expectation is compliance not on creativity, growth, and that kind of thing. And there’s probably a place for that kind of traditional supervision, but not in the work that we all do where people are working with people who have had incredible exposure to trauma. A trauma-informed supervision approach to me is much more taking a partnering approach, honoring the person’s expertise and experience and wisdom and ability to grow, and being able to absolutely share of our own wealth of knowledge as well.

(14:28): That doesn’t take center stage necessarily. It’s more of let’s come together, and let’s put our heads together, and let’s figure out how to move forward in this situation. That changes a little bit when there is something that happens where we might need to be a little more directive if something’s gone off the rails, and I’m sure we’ll talk about that. So much of supervision when it is trauma-informed, when it is person-centered, if you will, is going to likely fend off a lot of those situations where people might go off the rails as, or I don’t know how to say this otherwise except that they do something that’s not acceptable. It’s a boundary crossing or boundary violation. My belief is that we should treat staff the same way we want people to treat their clients. If we do that, we’ve gone a long way to modeling what is needed. I think modeling is usually more effective from a communication standpoint than any words that we might offer up.

Ashley (15:30): Yeah, I definitely believe that modeling is key and essential. As I think about to your point about it, if this is a perfect world, in the perfect situation, all supervision would be trauma-informed supervision, and it also makes me think about within organizations, networks, the work that we do within institutions and communities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, a lot of times we are working towards a particular goal and sometimes we’re not doing the thing that would get us closer to that outcome. If the outcome or the goal of supervision is to get the best possible service to the population we’re intending to serve, to maximize on people’s creativity, their innovation, their ability to work in their most productive and creative versions of themselves, if supervision is to promote the efficacy and efficiency of an organization, if supervision is to ensure that the ethical principles and things like that are being maximized within the profession, one of the ways that we ensure that that happens is by being trauma-informed.

(16:45): In that way, by not taking a trauma-informed approach to our supervision, we’re actually diminishing our ability to be able to supervise in the most effective way. In my, that’s my opinion, that’s my personal experience. It’s also deeply rooted in the literature that shows that when people have an environment where they feel like they can be their most authentic selves, where they feel nourished, where they feel cared for, they produce their best work. In that way, self-care, trauma-informed practices is one of the most selfless things we can do because it allows ourselves and other people to show up as the best versions of ourselves. That’s needed, that’s necessary, that is ideal. It gets me so excited to talk about.

(17:33): There’s also one thing that I want to make sure that we highlight because, well, some folks might be supervisors who are listening or maybe want to be supervisors who are listening, and I want to honor vicarious trauma that can show up for a person themselves as a supervisor. They could be impacted by issues of the organization or the society in their own personal life. How do we honor vicarious trauma and supervision, and what are some strategies that supervisors can use to be trauma-informed and nourishing to themselves in this work?

Ken (18:06): I mean, we know that one of the hallmark characteristics of trauma itself is that it’s kept secret, that it’s not talked about, that it’s something to avoid. One thing I think about as a supervisor is we do just the opposite. We bring it up, we name it, we acknowledge that it happens. I sometimes sort of tongue in cheek say, we should just write it into people’s job description that they will experience vicarious trauma because it’s true. Now, we can also mitigate against the harmful impacts of that, but it’s part of the work that we do if we let the work go through our hearts, and I think we all want that. I would just say succinctly that we bring it up, we ask about it on a regular basis. We listen well to what people’s responses are. We share our own experiences, including our struggles as well as our abilities to sort of work our way through things.

(19:02): I think on a regular basis, we want to show a curiosity about how this work is impacting you as a supervisee. I say that with a little gaurdedness, because our job is not to be a therapist. Our job is not to be get into the thick of it and people’s own secrets and things, but at the same time, we have to talk about it, and not only with individuals, but at group meetings and staff meetings, I think. Then there’s opportunities to have retreats and do a number of things that I can think can really help to soften the blow, if you will, of vicarious trauma.

Ashley (19:40): Yes, while we must expect it as it is often inevitable, we can create ways to support people through it, care for people through it, nurture people through it and also respond to it, pausing like we were talking about earlier, to nurture people. I think my thought in closing, as we process this, I have to honor this conversation, this beautiful conversation that I had yesterday about supervision and about trauma and about work. I’m talking to this wonderful individual who’s sharing that they’ve been putting work before life for so long, and that they’re excited to enter into this new season where they’re putting life before work. I said jokingly and softly, but the more I thought about it, I said, wow, this is really something we should talk about more. I said, well, there has been a long part of my journey where I put work before life, and my work wasn’t all that great.

(20:40): I was producing a lot and there was doing a lot, but the quality of it, the innovation of it, the creativity of it was reducing the work before life. I said, but when I put life and wellness in front of the work, then I brought that wellness, and I brought that life into the work. As a natural consequence of that, the work began to flourish. The ideas became greater, the passion became more fueled. It was like, wow, if you put life in front of the work, if you put wellness in front of the work, it is naturally just by virtual gravity, if we will. It’s going to pour into what you are actually doing. Just a note as we wrap up about trauma-informed supervision, prioritizing wellness is such a gift to the workplace. Any thoughts in closing, Ken?

Ken (21:40): Well, I think you’ve summed it up beautifully. You’re noting a conversation you had yesterday reminded me of something that happened to me yesterday too. I’ve been going through old books and discarding or donating or doing whatever, and I came across a book called Changing for Good, which was by Prochaska, Norcross, and DiClemente. Old book. I had a supervisee gifted to me at Christmas, and one line stood out. He said, “I always wanted a supervisor who used the same social work skills with me as with clients.” I was just so touched by that. That was 1998, which says something about my age. It was that modeling, that creating the conditions that you describe of for people to thrive, that I think really is what makes this fun and joyful. Even I once did a workshop on the joy of supervision, kind of taking off on the joy of cooking, but I think we can experience that at least some of the time.

Ashley (22:45): That is beautiful, Ken, and really captures the art of trauma-informed supervision. Ken, thank you so much for joining us today.

Ken (22:55): It’s been fabulous. Thank you.

Ashley (22:57): To our listeners, at C4 Innovations we offer a multitude of support options for supervisors, for managers, and for organizations around change, culture change, and trauma-informed supervision and coaching. For an opportunity to connect with Ken Kraybill, myself, Ashley Stewart, or any of our C4 professionals who are trained and prepared to support you and your organization, please click the link below in the show notes. Join us next time on Changing the Conversation.

Erika Simon, Producer (23:32): Visit c4innovates.com and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube for more resources to grow your impact. Thank you for joining us. This episode was produced by Erika Simon and Christina Murphy. Our theme song was written and performed by Peter Hanlon. Join us next time on Changing the Conversation.

[Music]

Access additional “Changing the Conversation” podcast episodes.