Case 7: The Token Economy and Supervising Challenges Paper
Aaliyah Lucas, Lakeysha Griffin, Le’Shawn Cummings, Jacqueline Wheaton, Mia Preciado
BSHS/461
April 30, 2014
Timothy S. Allison-Aipa, Ph.D.
What leadership model could one apply to the scenario? Explain your choice.
The Contingency Theory model could apply to the scenario. According to Lewis, Packard, & Lewis (2007)” Effective leadership is generally seen as a function of the subordinate, the supervisor, and the situation. Subordinate factors are addressed thorough motivation theory. Leadership theory provides guidance with respect to both the worker and the supervisor. Situational factors are relevant particularly when time is critical or a crisis is occurring. Contingency theory suggests that the effective supervisor will consider all relevant factors in the worker, the situation, and her or his own style preferences and strengths when deciding how to work with a particular subordinate.” The Contingency Theory was chosen to apply for several factors. It is flexible and can be applied to the eclectic treatment styles of each supervisee. It also is designed to conform to the different learning styles of the supervisee. For example, Hugh Schmidt, a long time employee of the center was not in favor of the token economy and often sabotaged the model. Mr. Schmidt was in favor of long-term therapy, insight, and intra-psychic change. Using the Contingency Theory the supervisor is able to counsel and direct Mr. Schmidt so that the focus of the program is maintained and the needs of the client are met. Another staff member, Carol Coke, agreed with the token economy model. Ms. Cooke’s biggest complaint was that she did not agree with the freedom that Mr. Forrest gave the employees. The Contingency Theory is designed to meet the need of Ms. Cooke’s need to be supervised more and be in a more directed environment. Being an efficient manager it is important to meet the need of each supervisee to accomplish the mission of the program. What key elements of the supervisory process were demonstrated?
According to Lewis, Packard, & Lewis (2007)” Today’s human service supervisor must fulfill several roles and functions to ensure efficient and effective services to clients. First and foremost, the supervisor, by virtue of the position, is an organizational leader. As such, the supervisor, through positional authority, is charged with the legitimate use of power in mobilizing and directing supervisees’ motivation and activity toward the accomplishment of organizational goals and objectives. This general purpose of supervision is accomplished through the assumption by the supervisor of three corollary roles and functions: manager, mediator, and mentor. Together with and anchored by the leadership component, these other dimensions of supervision in human services comprise a dynamic model of supervision.” Mr. Forrest demonstrated the key element of being a manager by declaring that his supervisee’s must be committed to the token economy being the standard treatment modality. Mr. Forrest allowed the supervisee’s to set his own working hours. He also allowed his professionals to work with their client’s according to their best interest. Newly hired professional staff would be supervised more utilizing the key supervisory element of mentoring. After the new staff had acquired experience, the staff would be granted freedom to practice more freely. The key supervisory element of mediator was not demonstrated in the case study. What common challenges did the supervisor and supervisee face? It seemed that both the supervisor and supervisee faced very similar challenges. The employees who were being supervised seemed to enjoy the freedom of not having a supervisor closely watching and directing things within the facility. The supervisor enjoyed allowing his employees the freedom to not have a
