Professional supervision in trans peer work

This essay was written as an assignment during the completion of a Postgraduate Certificate in Professional Supervision. It explores what supervision looks like in my context, and the ways kaitiakitanga-informed professional supervision could be applied to trans peer work.

Professional supervision is a form of reflective practice, engaged in by a number of ‘helping’ professions. In general, supervision aims to support practitioners to continue to develop in their professional practice; to practice safely, in line with professional and ethical obligations; to improve outcomes for clients accessing services; and to lessen the impact working in service to others can have on a practitioner’s wellbeing. 

Supervision is also recognised as a tool for supporting ongoing professional development (Davys & Beddoe, 2021) and often draws on Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (1984, as cited in Davys & Beddoe, 2021). In 2008, Milne et al. (as cited in Davys & Beddoe, 2021) carried out a review of supervision studies and found that 82% described outcomes consistent with this learning cycle. 

The functions of supervision 

Inskipp and Proctor (1933, as cited in Davys & Beddoe, 2021) defined three tasks or functions of supervision: the normative (ensuring alignment with organisational, professional, and ethical standards, policies, and processes), the formative (developing the supervisee’s skills and knowledge), and restorative (providing space to recognise and attend to the impact that helping professions can have on practitioner wellbeing). Davys and Beddoe (2021) suggest that this restorative, supportive aspect is a “core condition of supervision but not a function”, a condition that is necessary to supervision and inherent to the supervisory relationship (p. 33). 

In 2001, Morrison (as cited in Davys and Beddoe, 2021) added the mediative function, the “negotiation of the different, and sometimes competing, aspects of the supervision encounter” (p. 27). This function recognises that the expectations of an employing organisation, governing body, or associated policies and practices may not always align with best practice or be in the best interests of the supervisee or client. In these cases, supervision can have a role to play, such as supporting the supervisee to advocate for the needs of their client. 

Essential features 

While different professions (and indeed, modes of practice) approach supervision in different ways, there are some essential features to supervision. Most commonly discussed is the importance and centrality of the supervisory relationship, which should enable the supervisee to feel safe and respected in order for them to be able to share fully about their work and any challenges they may be facing. Corey et al (2010) put it plainly: “The quality of the supervisor-supervisee relationship is primary, with techniques and methods being secondary” (p. 46). 

Another essential feature resides in the supervisor themself: the ability to hold the multiple functions of supervision in relation to one another, keeping them in balance (Davys & Beddoe, 2021). While the necessary balance of each supervisory function depends on the supervisory context, it is important that no one function is neglected, as all functions must be tended to. 

Reflection is named as one of the four phases in Kolb’s (1984, as cited in Davys & Beddoe, 2021) experiential learning cycle, and is central to many models and approaches to supervision. Reflective approaches to supervision draw from social constructivism, moving away from approaches that frame supervision as being between a student and an epistemological ‘expert’ and towards one that recognises that there are “multiple perspectives instead of universal truths” (Edwards & Chen, 1999, as cited in Davys & Beddoe, 2021, p. 41). These approaches “[affirm] other ways of knowing, such as personal experience and its interpretation” (Davys & Beddoe, 2021, p. 40) and take a holistic approach to what is considered within supervision. 

Kaitiakitanga-informed professional supervision 

In Aotearoa, Māori practitioners from a range of disciplines have contributed to the discussion and development of kaupapa Māori and kaitiakitanga-informed approaches to professional supervision. These kaitiakitanga-informed models are grounded in the Aotearoa context and in Te Ao Māori, and as a result also take a more holistic and relational view to the supervisory process. In 2015, Jacquelyn Elkington (Ngāti Porou) compared tikanga Māori and social constructivism, finding that “very few, if any, western frameworks are able to align so closely with Tikanga Māori in the same way as Social Constructivism” (p. 30). 

Emma Webber-Dreadon (Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairoa, Rongomai Wahine, Rongowhakata, 2020) defines kaitiakitanga in terms of supervision as “a socially, heartfelt and humanistic approach, with concerns for people, their physical, emotional and spiritual needs, their welfare, their values and their dignity” (p. 70). As such, the kaitiaki (supervisor) has responsibilities not just to the tiaki (supervisee), tangata whaiora (client), and organisation, but to the whānau, hapu, and iwi of the tiaki, the tangata whaiora, and the kaitiaki themselves (Webber-Dreadon, 2020). These responsibilities stem from Te Ao Māori, and are common across kaupapa Māori and kaitiakitanga-informed approaches to supervision. 

Moana Eruera (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Rangiwewehi) and Leland A. Ruwhiu (Ngāti Porou, Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāi Tahu ki Mohaka, 2021) lay out the differences between the continuum of mainstream supervision and kaupapa Māori supervision clearly: mainstream supervision is “generic, based on Western professional knowledge, skills, values, and ethical considerations” and is “presented as acultural by nature” (p. 200), whereas kaupapa Māori supervision “places Māori critical thinking and practices as foundational in caring for Tangata whenua healers, and [is] accountable best practice for Indigenous peoples/Māori that is delivered by Tangata whenua for Tangata whenua” (p. 201). Eruera (2005, as cited in Eruera & Ruwhiu, 2021) describes the purpose of kaupapa Māori supervision as “enabling the supervisee to achieve safe and accountable professional practice, cultural development and self-care according to the philosophy, principles and practices derived from a Māori world-view” (p. 201). 

Supervision in a transgender peer support context 

In Aotearoa, peer support workers are used in a number of regions to support transgender clients. Transgender peer support workers support clients with issues relating to their gender identity, including practical support with legal and social affirmation, support with mild to moderate mental health issues, and support connecting into transgender communities (Qtopia, n.d.). Transgender peer support is often holistic, recognising that a journey of gender recognition touches every part of a client’s life, and often includes advocating alongside clients in response to systemic barriers or discrimination. 

Peer supporters working with transgender clients often seek supervision despite lived experience roles not having mandated supervision requirements from a regulatory body. As a result, understandings of professional supervision in this context can vary depending on the experience of the practitioner, the policies and practices of the organisation that employs them, contractual requirements both in terms of employment and service delivery, and the supervisor they engage with. A supervisor of a peer support worker will likely tend to organisational requirements when engaging with the normative function of supervision, rather than a professional code of practice. 

This range in understanding and engagement with supervision for peer workers is reflected in the limited published literature on the approaches to providing supervision for peer workers in general and transgender peer workers in particular. Most available literature about LGBTQIA+ matters in supervision concern the competency of non-LGBTQIA+ professionals working with LGBTQIA+ clients, rather than LGBTQIA+ supervisors or supervisees. 

In a significant contribution to the literature, Norton et al. (2023) discuss the provision of supervision to peer workers in Ireland, noting that supervision and reflective practice are essential for peer workers and “provide a supportive environment for peers to develop their skills, knowledge, and grow personally and professionally” (p. 70). They recommend that peer support workers be supervised by their own discipline rather than interprofessional supervision, recognising that a supervisor of peer workers should “understand their unique experiences and role within mental health systems, along with the emotional toll spent during day-to-day interaction with those they support” (p. 71). This recognition of the toll peer support work can take is especially important for transgender peer work, where peer support workers are working alongside clients with shared experiences of transphobia, gender dysphoria, and discrimination. 

The World Health Organisation (2019) recognises the importance of supervision in peer support roles, and also recommends that supervision of peer roles is provided by someone with experience working in peer roles themselves. They recognise that this is not always possible, recommending the supervisor at least “be trained or have experience in recovery-oriented practices which will allow them to better understand the role of a peer supporter” (p. 21). 

In practice in Aotearoa, many peer support workers access interprofessional supervision (Qtopia, personal communication, 2026). One transgender peer support service is contractually required to be supervised by a clinical psychologist, for example (Qtopia, personal communication, 2026). This may be due to the limited number of trained supervisors with both lived experience of gender diversity and experience working in peer roles. 

Te Pou (2025), a national workforce development centre for the consumer, peer support, and lived experience (CPSLE) workforce, have published Tupuranga, a framework for reflective practice in a peer context. Tupuranga uses “reflective practice” in lieu of “supervision”, as a way to privilege peer values and ways of working (Te Pou, 2025). Norton et al. (2023) describe reflective practice as a “core component” of supervision which can be facilitated though a number of different supervision models (p. 70). 

As peer support is its own discipline with its own knowledge subset (Norton et al., 2023), there may be challenges in applying theory- or mode-specific supervision models to peer support supervision. For supervisors of peer support workers in Aotearoa, drawing from kaitiakitanga-informed approaches to supervision can bring benefit. These approaches are atheoretical and appropriate across disciplines, are grounded in the context of Aotearoa, and recognise that the tangata whaiora sits within a broader whānau, community, environmental, and political context, which complements the holistic approach many transgender peer support services in Aotearoa take. Additionally, many health services in Aotearoa have enshrined obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which kaitiakitanga-informed approaches to supervision may support. 

Supervisors of peer support workers may also draw from existing atheoretical Western approaches. The field would benefit from further research and development of peer support-specific models of supervision, particularly for those in LGBTQIA+ lived experience roles. 

The seven-eyed model of supervision 

The seven-eyed model of supervision, developed by Peter Hawkins and Robin Shohet, gives supervisors seven ‘eyes’ or areas of focus to consider when providing supervision (Hawkins & Shohet, 2012). As a model, it calls on supervisors to consider a wide range of factors, being “both relational and systemic, in that it looks closely at what happens in both the relationship with the clients and what is happening within the supervisory relationship, and considers the interplay of both within the wider systemic contexts of clients, practitioners, and supervisor” (Hawkins & Shohet, 2012, p. 86). 

The seven ‘eyes’ in this model are: 

• the client 
• the tools and strategies used by the supervisee 
• the relationship between the client and supervisee 
• the supervisee 
• the supervisory relationship 
• the supervisor’s own process 
• the wider organisational, socio-political and cultural context 

Unlike some other models of supervision, the seven-eyed model does not prescribe a particular mode or theory, and has been revised to ensure its applicability across helping professions (Hawkins & Shohet, 2012). As such, the seven-eyed model of supervision is less task- or process-oriented than other Western models, increasing its applicability to an Aotearoa transgender peer work context. The explicit focus on the broader context in the seventh eye mean this model can be particularly applicable for practitioners working with an holistic approach, or practitioners necessarily engaging with social justice approaches to their work. 

The seven-eyed model of supervision is one of the few to have received attention from a specifically LGBTQIA+ focus. Hawkins and Neves (2024) foreground anti-oppression in their queering of the model, recognising that practitioners “need to work on their own biases and prejudices about [gender, sexuality, and relationship diversity] issues” (p. 347) and bringing further attention to race and intersectionality in supervision. Their ‘Queer 7-eyed model of clinical supervision’ adds additional queer points of focus to each eye, foregrounding sociopolitical contextual elements, discrimination, and the bias of both supervisor and supervisee as topics for attention in supervision (Hawkins & Neves, 2024). The Queer 7-eyed model of clinical supervision may be particularly useful for transgender supervisors working with cisgender supervisees, as it provides a framework for encouraging the supervisee to reflect on their transgender competency. 

While this model is not informed by kaitiakitanga, its flexibility and atheoretical approach means it can be used by practitioners in Aotearoa in ways that allow them to draw on kaitiakitanga and TeAo Māori themselves. The focus on relationships in eye 3 and 5, and the focus on broader contextual concerns in eye 7 align with some aspects of kaitiakitanga-informed supervision such as the focus on relationships, whakapapa, and whanaungatanga. 

For supervision of peer workers in Aotearoa, the flexibility and atheoretical approach also brings benefit, as does the lack of reliance on specific professional practice knowledge. However, use of the seven-eyed model alone, even with the addition of queer points of focus, leaves the burden on the supervisor to consider Te Ao Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as the model does not describe a specific, kaitiakitanga-informed way of working. In Aotearoa, the seven-eyed model of supervision should be supplemented with kaitiakitanga-informed approaches to supervision. 

He maunga, he tangata, he tapu, he kāhu. 

Emma Webber-Dreadon's (2020) model “He Maunga, He Tangata, He Tapu, He Kāhu” views supervision as kaitiakitanga. The model is an example of the ways kaupapa Māori and kaitiakitanga-informed approaches to supervision are grounded in Te Ao Māori: “he tāngata” is represented by Webber-Dreadon's kuia; the maunga (the final resting place of her kuia) is and represents “he tapu”, “the sacredness not only of the whenua but also the occasion of kaitiakitanga” (p. 74); and the kāhu represents the kaitiaki (supervisor), tiaki (supervisee), and the tangata whaiora and whānau. 

He Maunga... stands on nine takepū to guide kaitiakitanga sessions, with the ninth being mauri ora, which is worked towards in every session, and passed from the tiaki to the tangata whaiora. The other takepū guide the practice of kaitiakitanga itself: kōrero awhi (positive communication), tika (best practice), manaakitanga (respect and compassion), kaupapa (having a collective vision), pūmanawa (natural talents), whakamana (empowerment), whānau (a sense of belonging), and mātauranga (knowledge and wisdom). These takepū parallel reflective, social constructivist approaches in Western models: tika recognises that “the tiaki are the experts of themselves” and pūmanawa encourages kaitiaki to “locate, explore, and encourage the natural talents of the tiaki”, locating “expertise” within the tiaki and the kaitiakitanga relationship, rather than within the supervisor-as-expert (p. 75). 

He Maunga... also draws on reflective learning as “something we consciously focus on to improve aspects of the lives of tangata whaiora” by “find[ing] things out that one might not have thought of before, or how one would do it differently next time: to frame and reframe one’s social work practice for the future” (pp. 75-76). To support this in practice, Webber-Dreadon (2020) provides a set of kaitiakitanga pātai, and breaks the kaitiakitanga process down into stages that parallel the experiential learning cycle, from whitiwhiti kōrero (contracting) through to whakamutunga (concluding), beginning and ending with karakia. 

Although Webber-Dreadon (2020) developed He Maunga... from a kaimahi-a-iwi (social work) context, the model is applicable across helping professions due to its flexibility. The balance of broad takepū and specific pātai mean the model could be utilised by supervisors both experienced and developing. The focus on reflective learning means He Maunga... is especially useful for the developmental function of supervision, but may have less applicability to normative-heavy supervision contexts. 

For supervision of transgender peer work in Aotearoa, He Maunga... is a useful model to draw from. The focus on the inherent expertise and pūmanawa of the tiaki (and, in parallel, the tangatawhaiora) mirrors approaches taken when working with transgender people (see, for example, Carroll et al., 2025, p. 111). The flexibility of the model is suited for both intra- and interprofessional supervision of peer workers, as it does not rely on specific theories, modes, or practice knowledge. 

Although He Maunga... does not consider queer or transgender-specific concerns, supervisors working in rainbow contexts in Aotearoa could look to Te Whare Takatāpui, a Māori framework of takatāpui wellbeing, to inform their practice and supplement the takepū of He Maunga (Kerekere, 2023). 

Blending models to create unique approaches 

Considering the lack of published literature on models and approaches to supervision that are specific to a peer, transgender, or transgender peer context, supervisors of transgender peer workers in Aotearoa may need to combine or blend models to create unique approaches that best meet the needs of their context. In writing about the lack of published literature on supervision that tends to both sexuality and race, Singh and Chun (2010) describe how atheoretical, affirmative models of queer supervision have been used alongside more traditional models to bring a queer lens to supervision. However, they note how these affirmative models focus exclusively on sexuality without giving attention to race, “rendering [the models] incapable of fully addressing complexities involved in supervision with queer people of colour” (p. 37).  

Similar issues arise in the supervision of transgender people, as the extant affirmative models focus on basic and general LGB competencies – for example, Halpert (2007) describes the cornerstone of affirmative supervision as “accept[ing] gay, lesbian, and heterosexual orientations¹ as equally valid expressions of human sexuality” (p. 343). While Halpert’s Integrative Affirmative model of supervision does go further to encourage the examination of internalised homophobia, the challenges transgender peer workers face in 2026 require supervision competences well beyond the base acceptance of diversity. 

To address this gap for queer people of colour, Singh and Chun (2010) combine the Integrative Affirmative model with the Multicultural Supervision Competencies (Ancis & Ladany, 2001, cited in Singh & Chun, 2010) to create the Queer People of Colour Resilience-Based Model of Supervision (QRMS). Singh and Chun achieve this by adapting themes from the Integrative Affirmative model to explicitly include the consideration of race; conceptualising the six Multicultural Supervision Competencies as overlapping domains; and tending to three Integrative Affirmative themes in each domain: awareness of privilege and oppression, affirmation of diversity, and supervisor empowerment. The result is a supervision model more appropriate to the specific needs and experiences of queer people of colour, “challeng[ing] the field to recognise the political nature of supervision, acknowledge experiences of privilege and oppression, affirm all forms of diversity, and celebrate supervisor resilience” (Singh & Chun, 2010, p. 45). 

The focus on supervisor development with specific attention to privilege and oppression in the QRMS may also bring benefit to supervisors of transgender peer workers in Aotearoa, as transgender peer work engages with the experiences of privilege, oppression, and discrimination transgender clients face. Additionally, for Pākehā supervisors working in a predominantly Pākehārainbow sector in Aotearoa (Nakhid et al., 2024), supervisor development with a focus on race alongside sexuality and gender is essential. 

Conclusion 

Professional supervision and reflective practice are essential tools to support the development, safe practice, and wellbeing of transgender peer workers. Despite the literature recommending intraprofessional supervision for peer workers (Norton et al., 2023, World Health Organisation, 2019), transgender peer workers in one Aotearoa service access interprofessional supervision (personal communication, Qtopia, 2026). 

Limitations in supervision literature around peer work roles and the experiences of transgender practitioners accessing supervision mean that supervisors of transgender peer workers need to draw from mainstream models of supervision while keeping the specific context of transgender peer work in mind. The limited queer models of supervision have been developed by adapting and blending existing approaches (Singh & Chun, 2010) so approaches to supervising transgender peer work may also adapt and blend existing models. 

For supervisors of transgender peer workers in Aotearoa, kaitiakitanga-informed models of professional supervision can bring significant benefit due to their relational, holistic approach, their connection to Te Ao Māori, and their drawing from reflective practice. Trans peer supervisors could look to supplement these approaches with Western models such as the (queer) seven-eyed model of supervision, or with other non-supervisory kaupapa Māori models of health, such as Te Whare Takatāpui (Kerekere, 2023). 

Bibliography 

No AI tools were used in the creation of this essay – proudly human work only. 

Carroll, R., Nicholls, R., O’Neill, L., Reid, D., Barbour-Evans, S., Bullock, J., Drinkwater, C., Horton, J., Johnson, R., Kristensen, Z., Oliphant, J., Sepulveda, B., Shields, J., Yang, R. (2025). Guidelines for Gender Affirming Healthcare in Aotearoa New Zealand. https://patha.nz/resources-and-training/clinical-guidelines 

Corey, G., Haynes, R., Moulton, P., & Muratori, M. (2010). Clinical supervision in the helping professions: A practical guide. American Counselling Association 

Davys, A., & Beddoe, L. (2021). Best practice in professional supervision (2^nd ed.). Jessica Kingley Publishers. 

Elkington, J. (2015). Pakiwaitara – social work sense for supervision. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work 27(4), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol27iss4id434 

Eruera, M. & Ruwhiu, L. (2021). An indigenous eye-glass on supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand. In O’Donoghue, D. & Engelbrecht, L. The Routledge International Handbook of Social Work Supervision (pp. 200-216). Routledge. 

Halpert, S., Reinhardt, B., & Toohey, M. (2007). Affirmative clinical supervision. In Bieschke, K. J., Perez, R. M., & DeBord, K. A (Eds), Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Clients (2nd ed., pp. 341-358). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11482-000  

Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2012). Supervision in the helping professions. McGraw-Hill Education. 

Hawkins, R., & Neves, S. (2024). Queering the 7-eyed model of supervision. Sexual and Relationship Theory 40(2), 340-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2024.2403347  

Kerekere, E. (2023). Te Whare Takatāpui - Reclaiming the spaces of our ancestors. In Green, A. & Pihama, L. Honouring Our Ancestors: Takatāpui, Two-Spirit and Indigenous LGBTQI+ Well-being (pp 73-96). Te Herenga Waka University Press. 

Nakhid, C., Abu Ali, Z., Fu, M., Vano, L., Yachinta, C., & Tuwe, M. (2024). Disrupting racism– young ethnic queers in white queer Aotearoa New Zealand. Journal of LGBT Youth, 21(4), 756–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2023.2248984  

Norton, M., Griffin, M., Collins, M., Clark, M., Browne, E. (2023). Using auto-ethnography to reflect on peer support supervision in an Irish context. Journal of Practice Teaching & Learning 21(1-2), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1921/jpts.v21i2.2079  

Singh, A., & Chun, K. Y. S. (2010). “From the margins to the center”: Moving towards a resilience-based model of supervision for queer people of color supervisors. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017373  

Qtopia. (n.d.). Healthcare. https://qtopia.org.nz/healthcare 

Te Pou. (2025). Tupuranga: a place to grow. https://www.tepou.co.nz/resources/tupuranga-a-place-to-grow  

Webber-Dreardon, E. (2020). Kaitiakitanga: A transformation of supervision. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work 32(3), 68-79. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol32iss3id770 

World Health Organisation. (2019). One-to-one peer support by and for people with lived experience, WHO QualityRights guidance module. https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/ed73f83e-e8b8-4128-8a8c-4e12bbedc6da/content