Supervision may be mandatory for coaches as far as coaching bodies and providers are concerned, but it remains an emergent market, according to new research by Sam Humphreys and Louise Sheppard
There is very little research into the fast-growing market of coaching supervision. So how is it perceived and used by coaches and organisations? Curious to find answers, we decided to start our own research. Beginning last year, we interviewed providers to explore their views and approaches to the provision of coaching supervision.
According to our study, prestigious coaching providers TXG, Penna, The Alliance Group, Oxford Group, Hay, Acuity and Praesta, wouldn’t represent a coach who wasn’t in supervision, believing the latter to be a key support mechanism for any professional and credible coach.
This unanimous vote of confidence in supervision is good news for the profession, because it shows that at least some of the major coaching providers are following the standards expected by all the coaching bodies.
There was general agreement that there is a lot to learn about supervision, its application, value and supply. It’s an emergent field. In fact, all interviewees commented on how much they had enjoyed our dialogue.
Purposes
We started our conversations by exploring what coaching providers see as the key purposes of supervision. All offered more than one purpose for supervision. Some purposes benefit the individual coach; others the coaching organisation. We found it interesting that client needs were rarely cited. Only one organisation said a client organisation had demanded supervision; another revealed that they insisted their coaches have supervision, as they want to be seen as a premium provider.
Measurement
Throughout the interviews, we discussed the difficulty of measuring supervision – 86 per cent of organisations do not have any form of measurement. Most providers are unsure what criteria to use and then how to measure them.
Those that do, use a qualitative process involving discussions with the coach, client reviews and reflective practice. One organisation has a quality group that reviews whether supervision is working. It also has peer reviews of partners and establishes personal development plans (PDPs).
Another asks about supervision at the initial coach interview and holds catch-up conversations. None use quantitative measurements.
Benefits
So what do coaching providers perceive the benefits of supervision to be? Throughout the interviews, it was clear that all the participants believed supervision is value-add activity for the coach, the coaching organisation and the client. Interestingly, there was a broader range of perceived “benefits” than there were perceived “purposes”.
All organisations said there was anecdotal evidence of the benefits of supervision. These were typically stories of insight, which enabled the coach to pursue a different approach or course of action with their client. Most of the organisations also said there are intended and unintended benefits arising from supervision.
Standards
All those we surveyed require their coaches to be in supervision with trained supervisors. Two-thirds specified additional expectations, ranging from: company A (regular, bi-monthly, individual supervision sessions with a qualified supervisor); company B (regular supervision sessions with a psychodynamically trained in-house supervisor; to company C (monthly, in-house, individual supervision, group supervision and team supervision – for coaches in team coaching). Coaches must produce a PDP to be reviewed by a quality review group.
‘Good’ supervision
Although all the organisations had clear views on what they thought ‘good’ supervision looked like, no two held the same view. There are also multiple layers of ‘good’, covering personal experience, the supervisor and the process.
Supervision in other countries was also raised. In the US, for example, coaches tend to have a mentor coach and work to a different understanding of supervision from the UK.
It also became apparent that there were differing views about whether ‘good’ supervision was in a group and/or individual format. The views of the coaching providers in our survey are shown in Figure 1.
While group supervision was seen as a powerful format, one organisation had encountered some boundary issues when discussing cases. This was because the group of coaches were working with each other’s client colleagues in the client organisation. They had had to devise ground rules to protect confidentiality.
Provision
The provision of supervision varied across organisations and included:
Holding informal conversations about supervision
Hosting individual supervision sessions
Hosting group supervision, in some cases around client themes
Having conference calls with a supervisor
Recommending supervisors
Running coaching circles
Conclusion
Supervision is seen as a mandatory requirement for coaches by all the professional coaching bodies and by all the coaching service providers we interviewed. For those organisations who position themselves as pure coaching ‘stables’, supervision has been embraced as a key part of their provision and they have established pockets of good practice. However, we can see that the supervision is evolving.
We also noticed that coaching providers at the higher end of the market and commanding higher fees, conduct their supervision in a more integrated, structured, in-depth way.
The mandatory nature of supervision is not backed up with clear, aligned, structured aims and processes from coaching providers, client organisations or professional bodies. It begs the question: if better aligned, could coach supervision leverage more benefit for all?
There is an absence of measurement of supervision or perhaps, more importantly, an absence of agreement on what makes ‘good’ supervision. On a positive note, all the organisations had clear views on what they thought it looked like to them.
Sam Humphrey is a partner in the Møller PSF Group Cambridge
Louise Sheppard is managing director of Clarity Clarity Clarity
Recommendations for coaching providers
Provide clear guidelines on standards for supervision in organisations
It is not easy for a coach to find ‘good’ supervision, when there is such a range of views on what ‘good’ looks like. Coaching providers need to draw up clear, comprehensive guidelines about the supervision they want their coaches to have.
Host in-house supervision, or hold a supervisor register, to distinguish yourself in the coaching market
It would seem prudent for coaching providers to influence what supervision their coaches receive, to ensure it meets their high, emerging standards. ‘Good’ supervision will come with its own brand of quality and reputation that can only add to the coaching provider’s standing. You can influence the supervision by providing it in-house or by recommending who the coaches use for supervision. In addition, having a relationship with selected supervisor(s) may also provide feedback.
Leverage your reputation for ‘good’ supervision with client and coach
By leveraging the provision good supervision, coaching organisations may be able to enjoy more business wins and an enhanced reputation among clients and coaches. High quality coaches will want to work for such providers.
Consider supervision formats
We believe coaches benefit from participating in both individual and group supervision. Currently, only 13 per cent of providers surveyed offer both formats.
Develop supervision reviews
If the coaching provider also offers in-house supervision, it is important to review regularly whether this meets the coach’s and client’s needs. Only one organisation currently does this through internal and client review processes. Where a provider is not supplying in-house supervision, it is good practice to monitor what the coaches are doing for supervision. One of the organisations in our survey had developed annual check-ins with their coaches. Coaching providers may want to consider how they can demonstrate that their coaches are in supervision and think about ways to demonstrate coach, coach provider and client value from it.
Adopt a PDP approach
All coaching providers could ask their coaches to develop PDPs. These would benefit the coach, who would gain clarity about what they want from supervision and the CPD to support them. If the coach changes supervisor, the PDP would travel with them.
Volume 7, issue 6