An internal coaching organiser waits until the end of an uneventful supervision session to let slip about a serious client issue. What should his supervisor do?
The Issue
Nick is a learning and development officer with a small charity. His organisation has been introducing internal coaching for 18 months and Nick has been involved in organising the internal coaching programme.
As part of his coach training, Nick has been receiving supervision for the past nine months. In a recent meeting with his supervisor, Ben, Nick remarks that he has no major issues to discuss. He spends most of the session talking about his own learning and the work he has done on developing a contracting framework for his organisation.
Just as the session ends, Nick mentions, in passing, that completion of his work on the contracting has been held up because he’s spending a lot of time with one client, Rob, who he has been coaching for six weeks. Rob is a senior manager and has been having problems outside of work. Nick has been coaching him around these issues.
Issues raised right at the end of a coaching or supervision session are often significant, though they seem like an afterthought. GPs call this the ‘Hand on the Doorknob’ syndrome, where the thing that has been bothering the patient most is squeezed in when the actual consultation is over.
The Interventions
Trish Brady
Director, Cadenza Associates and Trish Brady Associates
First, it’s important to acknowledge the importance of the issue and the way it has been raised (ie, pushing the boundary of the session) and invite Nick to prepare more fully to discuss the issue in his next supervision session.
Using Hawkins and Shohet’s Seven-Eyed model of supervision (OUP, 2012) might be a good place to explore Nick’s experience. It would be interesting to explore the dynamics of Nick and Rob’s relationship (Mode 3 of the model): how did they come to be working together… what image or metaphor would Nick use to represent the relationship?
Such questions can help Nick gain a better understanding of how they he and Rob work together. Mode 4 questions will help Nick to understand his own motivations, reactions and feelings about Rob.
For instance, has Nick has succumbed to what Hawkins and Smith* describe as the ‘Deference Threshold’? This is where coaches’ perception of the client renders the coach less effective, perhaps in this case drawing behaviours from Nick at odds with his professional focus on clear and appropriate contracting in the organisation.
In Mode 5, Ben and Nick can observe in what ways their own relationship might be paralleling (demonstrating similar aspects to) Nick’s relationship with Rob and how exploration of those patterns can throw light on Nick’s work with him.
Finally, exploration of Mode 7 would offer a way for Nick to explore the ways in which his coaching relationships interact with the organisation as a whole. This can help him to understand more of the complexity of the role of the internal coach as well as help him to create a practical and robust framework for contracting that meets the needs of the organisation.
- Trish Brady is a coach and coach supervisor
trish@trishbady.co.uk
*P Hawkins and N Smith, Coaching, Mentoring and Organizational Consultancy: Supervision and Development, 1st edn, pp293-301, Oxford: Open University Press, 2007
Paula Wilson
Director, Wilson Sloan Consulting
While it will be important for Ben, as supervisor, to assist Nick in considering how he best supports Rob, wider systemic issues need immediate consideration.
The supervisor might wish to get Nick to focus on his contractual responsibilities, a) as L&D manager and b) as lead on the internal coaching programme. How is Nick prioritising his responsibilities if his work with Ben is hindering completion of delivery on the internal programme? How is Nick modelling the importance of effective contracting to the internal coaches if he cannot complete the contracting phase?hile it will be important for Ben, as supervisor, to assist Nick in considering how he best supports Rob, wider systemic issues need immediate consideration.
Ethically, Ben as supervisor would be wise to assist Nick in exploring how well-equipped and qualified Nick is to support Rob with these issues. Does Nick’s role as L&D manager include supporting colleagues with issues outside of the workplace or is this beyond contractual boundaries? What has he contracted with Rob and is he staying within these parameters?
When looking at Nick’s work with Rob it might also be useful to use the ‘Karpman Drama Triangle’ (http://bit.ly/214izlf) to help Nick ‘check’ he is neutral and not being potentially hooked into rescuer mode.
From a ‘formative’ perspective, it might also be useful for the supervisor to sense-check Nick’s levels of self-awareness – perhaps reflecting back on how he has stated that there are no major issues, yet casually mentioning the issue with Rob towards the end.
There may be parallel processing – what more is Nick discounting or avoiding discussing at supervision and what might be going on in his coaching relationship with Rob that is being played out in supervision? One wonders whether Rob’s seniority has a bearing on Nick’s discomfort in discussing or conceding vulnerability?
- Paula Wilson is an accredited coach, team coach and supervisor
paula@wilsonsloanconsulting.com