Supervisors Are the Fix (But Only If We’re Willing to Invest the Time)
There’s a quiet tradeoff happening in IDD organizations every day.
You can invest time now—coaching supervisors, clarifying expectations, practicing difficult conversations, and giving real feedback.
Or you can invest time later—covering shifts, onboarding replacements, responding to burnout, and wondering why another good employee walked out the door.
Either way, the time gets spent.
Recently, I sat down with Helena Maguire from Melmark on the IDD Leader Podcast (Episode 66), and one thing she said perfectly captured this reality:
“You’re either committing the time now and ensuring that we have successful supervisors, or you’ll commit time later when we lose the DSP or the supervisor.”
That line landed because most leaders don’t need convincing—they’re already living it.
Why This Keeps Happening (Even When Leaders Care)
Many organizations genuinely want to support their supervisors.
They promote strong DSPs.
They provide policies and training.
They expect good leadership to emerge.
But supervision isn’t a role you grow into by accident. It’s a set of behaviors that has to be shaped over time.
When supervisors don’t get that support, the fallout is subtle at first:
Feedback gets delayed or avoided
Expectations become inconsistent
Performance issues linger until they explode
Staff don’t usually leave because of one bad moment. They leave because the day-to-day experience feels unclear, unsupported, or exhausting.
What Strong Organizations Do Differently
Here’s where Melmark offers a useful, real-world example—not because they’re perfect, but because they’ve made a deliberate choice many organizations avoid.
They’ve decided that supervision is worth investing in early, often, and in ongoing ways.
That means supervisors aren’t expected to just “figure it out.” Instead, supervision is treated as something that can be:
Modeled
Practiced
Observed
Coached
That approach takes time. It’s slower up front. And it requires leaders to stay involved over the long-term.
But it also prevents a much heavier time cost later.
This Isn’t About Copying a Model
The point isn’t that every organization should do what Melmark does. (Although, if they did, that might not be a bad thing…)
The point is this:
Turnover is rarely random—it’s usually predictable.
And supervision is one of the earliest places the warning signs show up.
Whether you call it organizational behavior management, people-first leadership, or just good management, the pattern is the same:
Clear expectations reduce anxiety
Timely feedback builds confidence
Supported supervisors create safer environments for staff
Those are principles many leaders already believe in—but belief alone doesn’t change outcomes. Systems do.
Paying Now vs. Paying Later
This is the choice every organization eventually faces.
You can spend time now:
Coaching supervisors
Practicing real skills
Following up more than once
Or you can spend time later:
Recruiting constantly
Filling gaps
Recovering trust
Neither path is effortless. One just leads somewhere better.
And when organizations make that choice intentionally, the payoff compounds—steadier teams, calmer supervisors, and fewer “surprise” resignations.
A Practical Next Step
If you’re wondering whether your supervision systems are helping—or quietly hurting—your workforce, awareness is the best place to start.
Download “7 Quiet Danger Signs Your Supervisors Are Burning Out Their Staff.”
It’s a short, practical resource designed to help leaders spot system gaps early—before they turn into turnover.
