How do we create the ‘freedom to be’ within supervision – in a role that requires responsibility and accountability from us? Anstey Thomas reports
I’ve been encouraged to write this article to demonstrate that in-depth enquiry can be seen as research in social and humanity area of science. In the tradition of philosophical pragmatism, disciplined, critical, reflective thought that carefully considers various interpretations and explanations of a particular phenomenon or concept is considered to be scientific (Fishman, 1999). This enquiry is about the concept of freedom in the context of coaching supervision.
I’ve always been driven by a desire to ‘create freedoms’ both for myself as well as for others. In many ways this has been at the core of my practice, both formerly as a professional actress as well as over the past 15 years as an executive coach. During my recent supervision training, however, the idea of creating freedom seemed to sit less comfortably within the supervision role, one that demands greater layers of responsibility and ‘professional accountability’ (Bachkirova, 2011a).
I began to wonder, therefore, whether my existential philosophical perspective had any part to play in supervision. The lack of references to ‘freedom’ within supervision literature also increased my existential angst. Within this article, therefore, I’ll explore how creating freedom has an important part to play in supervision, a part that we have a sense of wanting to achieve but rarely articulate.
Full of potential
Although I have a self-deluding belief that I have free will and autonomy, this isn’t what I mean by ‘creating freedom’ within the supervision space. What grew out of a conversation with my supervisor on the supervision programme, Tatiana Bachkirova, was an acknowledgement that we are all constrained within structures and boundaries (particularly in our coaching or supervision relationships), however, the freedom we experience relates to our flexibility and fluidness as practitioners within these confines. Who we are or who we become is full of potential and possibility.
During my supervision training, several of the participants (despite being experienced coaches) described feeling less “free” within the supervision role, struggling to “be in the moment” or be “present” as they were consciously aware of what they were doing. I also felt outside the moment, unable to be there for supervisees in my determination to demonstrate all the competencies (Jackson & Bachkirova, 2018).
What I longed for was to feel free within the supervision role, to be able to draw on or access what I needed as and when, intuitively and without conscious effort. To become more fluid and flexible as a practitioner and less fixed. In the words of Bluckert (2006), “being able to connect with more aspects of yourself and to bring them authentically into the coaching relationship” (p.125).
The supervisor role clearly demands greater levels of awareness as well as responsibility, towards the supervisee, their client, as well as the stakeholders beyond the room – “the invisible client” (Towler, 2005, p.309). Gaining perspective on the nuances of all these relationships appears to demand an ability to flex one’s style, one’s focus and ability to think more systemically, developing a freedom in our thinking, approach and perspective. Very importantly, I’m conscious that I should be helping my supervisee experience a freedom within the complexity of their numerous relationships and be able to flex within these safely and effectively.
Many coaches are reticent about supervision as they assume a level of “policing” of their practice, that it may “stultify” their “diversity and creativity” (Bachkirova, 2011a). What would happen, therefore, if they viewed supervision as a way of ultimately freeing their practice?
Freedom to be
This idea arose from a discussion with Tatiana about the distinction between ‘freedom from’ and ‘freedom to’. I see ‘freedom to be’ as a different concept that brings into focus our ability to be ‘multiple’, ‘fluid’ and expansive as human beings. From a supervision perspective this relates to our ‘presence’ and being able to access within ourselves what we need ‘in the moment’. This could be described as our ability to be “true to the situation” (Bachkirova, 2020), able to flex to the needs of the client and the situation they’re experiencing, whether to facilitate their development, promote professional standards or support their wellbeing, etc. At a fundamental level it suggests a ‘freedom to be’ constantly evolving and expanding as practitioners, engaging with our ‘multiplicity’ potentially.
There is an understandable reticence to view the ‘self’ as ‘multiple’, despite many voices within neuroscience (Damasio, 2000; Gazzaniga, 2012) as well as the coaching world supporting the idea that we are a more than one “self” (Bachkirova, 2011b). Interestingly, within the arts, engaging with one’s numerous ‘selves’ sits more comfortably. As an actress, I was aware of accessing many selves while embodying other characters. I felt ‘free to be’ whoever I needed to be in the moment via honouring being true to the situation – my fellow actors, the audience, playwright, etc.
I realised, however, that as a trainee supervisor I became less ‘fluid’ or able to engage with parts of myself that were unfamiliar. Being in the developmental part of the supervision role sat comfortably with my ‘self-concept’, whereas moving into being an advocate of professional standards felt confining. In many ways, I temporarily lost the ability to access different parts of myself, becoming fixed and inflexible. Had I approached the supervision role as well as my supervisees with the belief in our ‘freedom to be’ ‘multiple’ and expansive, we would have both experienced a greater sense of our potential both within and beyond the relationship.
‘This new freedom significantly expands the array of behaviours which can flow forth from me. I literally can be this potential or that other potential, and I can accomplish this switch with ease. In effect, I am free to be each of these potential selves…’ (Mahrer, 1978, p.504; cited in Bachkirova, 2011b, p.170).
Approaching supervision with the ambition of ‘creating freedom’ for both ourselves as well as our supervisees, could allow us both a ‘freedom to be’, ‘multiple’, expansive and full of potential.
About the author
Anstey Thomas is an accredited executive coach and leadership mentor. Formerly a professional actress, she’s been coaching leaders in business for more than 15 years, including around developing clients’ ‘signature presence’.
She recently undertook coaching supervision training at Oxford Brookes University, to gain the Professional Certificate of Advanced Study in Coaching Supervision. She’s also been researching the role that ‘expressiveness’ plays within the coaching dynamic as part of her MA in coaching and mentoring at Oxford Brookes.
References
- T Bachkirova, ‘How do we really keep it real?’, in Coaching at Work, 15(5), 12-13, 2020
- T Bachkirova, ‘Guiding Light’, in Coaching at Work, 6(5), 47-49, 2011a
- T Bachkirova, Developmental Coaching: Working with the Self, Open University Press, 2011b
- P Bluckert, Psychological Dimensions of Executive Coaching, Open University Press, 2006
- A Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens: Body, Emotion and the Making of Consciousness, London: Vintage, 2000
- D B Fishman, The Case for Pragmatic Psychology, New York University Press, 1999
- M Gazzaniga, Who’s in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain, London: Robinsons, 2012
- P Jackson and T Bachkirova, ‘The 3 Ps of supervision and coaching: Philosophy, Purpose and Process’ in E. Turner and S. Palmer (eds.), The Heart of Supervision, London: Routledge, pp.20-40, 2018
- J Towler, A grounded theory study of organisational supervision of counsellors: The influence of the invisible client. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Surrey, 2005