The use of inhouse supervision of internal coaches is growing. Paul Heardman investigates what this under-explored part of the coaching landscape has to offer.
It’s a common assumption that internal coaches benefit from external supervision to reduce the risk of ‘systemic blindness’ – in the classic metaphor, this enables the fabled fish who doesn’t know it’s swimming in water to become more aware.
External supervisors frequently bring considerable depth and breadth of experience to their supervision of internal coaches. It’s assumed this means external supervision is more effective than internal supervision (where the supervisor is part of the same organisation as the coach).
But could this prevailing orthodoxy be itself a systemic blind spot? We currently lack comparative research on the efficacy of external versus internal supervision, not least from a client and organisational perspective. Yet the discourse, thus far, has focused on the perceived limitations of internal supervision more than possible upsides. What might greater focus on the benefits of a specifically internal supervision model reveal?
This article explores this question by drawing on first-hand stories from internal coaches’ experience of both internal and external supervision, and on insights from internal supervisors and those managing internal coaching functions. These perspectives – relatively under-represented in this debate until now – offer useful new insights.
These point towards a suggested new framework for internal supervision which unpacks the dynamic tensions of working systemically while being part of the system. This model could support the emergence of best practice standards for internal supervision, while also serving external supervisors in navigating the complexities of supervising internal coaches.
Challenges for inhouse supervision
The potential limitations of internal supervision have been well documented. These include:
• Collusion
Being part of a system is to risk becoming desensitised to organisational cultural or system dynamics, which may themselves be keeping the client stuck (Campion et al, 2021). Internal supervisors can collude with taken-for-granted assumptions, which an external supervisor might challenge.
Working internally, it can, ironically, become easy to overlook the organisational client, with too much focus on the individual. Internal supervisors can fall prey to subjective counter-transference, ie, where the coach’s and/or client’s issue resonates with the supervisor’s own feelings about an organisational topic, blurring the supervisor’s ‘super-vision’ (St John-Brooks, 2019).
• Commitment
Internal supervision might not be viewed as serious a commitment as sessions with an external supervisor. There are perceived risks of supervisees turning up unprepared or of late cancellations due to day job pressures – though we lack data to assess whether this is any more prevalent than with external supervision.
• Confusion
Internal supervisors are typically ‘job-plus’ supervisors (engaging in supervision in addition to day jobs) and so need to manage challenges around ‘dual role’ dynamics. For example, one supervisor shared how his day job as a senior HR leader means he notices inhouse supervisees sometimes worry what he’ll think of their coaching ‘mistakes’. Another supervisor described how an internal supervisee is much more senior in the organisation, triggering the supervisor’s ‘am I good enough?’ script. Such examples show how organisational power dynamics and projections show up in internal supervision, confusing both supervisor and supervisee, consciously and unconsciously.
• Confidence
Inhouse coaches report how imposter syndrome and the inner critic come up often for clients. Internal coaches may also experience such feelings themselves, not least if coaching is a small part of their role. This can be compounded thrice-fold if internal supervisors have similar internal narratives. It can mean supervision happens in a ‘trance’ where false assumptions are lived as true. It can fuel drama triangle dynamics, eg, the internal supervisor ‘rescuing’ the supervisee to avoid their own discomfort at ‘not knowing’.
• Competence
A particular risk in the internal model is the temptation to train internal coaches with only limited coaching experience to be supervisors. If an inhouse supervision model becomes primarily about saving costs, quality will suffer. For example, contracting on boundaries and confidentiality often need more attention in an internal context. So inhouse supervisors may need additional training. Inhouse supervision requires a clear strategy for CPD and supervision of supervision or risks lapsing into questionable practice.
The benefits of inhouse supervision
In exploring the benefits which internal supervision might offer, the following draws on perspectives from those involved in inhouse coaching, including inhouse supervisors and those leading inhouse coaching functions:
• Collegiality
Internal coaches report how having an internal supervisor can help generate trust and rapport. Given the centrality of relationship in effective supervision (De Haan ,2012), this is significant. Some organisational cultures, either overtly or implicitly, can militate against internal coaches trusting external supervision, such as where confidentiality is prized. Internal coaches describe how the trust generated in internal supervision can enable them to bring their ‘real’ issues to sessions, lessening the pressure to ‘perform’.
Despite best endeavours by external supervisors to create safety, some internal coaches say they have felt intimidated by an external supervisor’s impressive CV. This suggests that internal supervision can potentially reduce risks of shame, a common challenge in supervision. Internal coaches also report how internal supervision helps them feel less lonely, a common hazard in internal coaching (St John-Brooks, 2014).
• Choice
External supervisors of inhouse coaches are typically engaged centrally, with internal coaches often having little or no say in who they are matched with. If the relationship does not gel, the internal coach can feel unsupported. With an internal model, supervisees can, potentially, have greater choice of supervisor (though this depends on the size of the internal supervision cadre).
One public sector organisation, for example, has a roster of 12 inhouse supervisors, which gives supervisees more agency in the partnering process. This reduces risks of Parent/Child dynamics where supervisees are simply ‘told’ who their supervisor is. Inhouse supervision can provide valuable flexibility in terms of mode and pacing. Budget constraints mean external supervision is commonly only available to internal coaches in group format, sometimes only quarterly. Internal supervision can be more adaptive, eg, enabling both one-to-one and group supervision. It can, if resourced well, facilitate supervisee-led timing/pacing of sessions, eg, monthly if needed.
• Cultural insight
Internal supervisors report that being part of the same organisation as their supervisees can enhance sense-making and insight in the supervision process. They describe examples of leveraging their own organisational awareness to tune into nuances in what supervisees are saying, or not saying. This is the flip side of the ‘fish swimming in water’ metaphor – times when internal supervisors use their own ‘fishyness’ as an asset to deepen the supervision’s impact, eg, catching the subtle or coded cultural meaning in a client’s issue that external supervisors can miss. Both supervisors and supervisees report how this shared cultural frame can deepen the working alliance.
• Consistency
There can sometimes be considerable churn in organisations’ use of external supervisors – one internal coach reported having five different external supervisors over three years (though that is perhaps an extreme). An internal model, run well, can provide valuable continuity, supporting the raising of internal coaching standards over time.
Of course, there are risks also of internal supervisor churn. But Long (2012) notes how internal supervision can build coaching capability, including by spotting patterns, trends and longer-term CPD requirements. Training internal coach supervisors upskills them as coaches, meaning they can mentor others, run some inhouse coaching CPD and suggest strategic coaching interventions. While external supervisors also have much to contribute, the revolving door nature of some assignments can make it harder to add longer-term value.
• Cost
For those managing internal coaching budgets, this is often the main prompt for developing an internal supervision offer. Good quality external supervision is, rightly, not cheap. Organisations with large internal coaching pools have recognised they can save considerable sums by re-investing in training inhouse supervisors and potentially boost longer-term ROI by raising internal coaching capability.
Integrating polarities – a new framework for internal supervision
What emerges here is the benefit of avoiding reductionist ‘internal versus external’ debates. Much of what works is, it seems, more about the quality of the delivery model, the capability of individual practitioners and the fit with organisational context. A binary focus misses important complexities.
Furthermore, unpacking the pros and cons of inhouse supervision reveals interesting correlations – how advantages can flip into problems and, conversely, how challenges can turn into resources. Five key dimensions for these correlations can be identified.
First, examining the closeness of the internal supervision relationship, we see how both Collusion and Collegiality can co-arise. Second, in looking at the degree of co-creation in the relationship, we see how both Choice and Commitment issues surface. Third, in scrutinising the impact of insider knowledge, we spot how both Confusion and Cultural insight might manifest. Fourth, in noticing what benchmarks are set (intentionally or not), we see how Consistency and Confidence issues are relevant. And finally, fifth, in exploring cost/quality ratios, we see how Cost and Competence issues are correlated.
From this, the ‘10 Cs’ model of internal coaching supervision is offered here as a practitioner framework to aid reflection. It could also inform governance models, training, CPD and supervision of internal supervision. Practice may shift along each axis, depending on context, eg, the nature of a topic or level of a supervisor’s development.
Figure 1: The ‘10 Cs’ model of internal coaching supervision © Copyright Paul Heardman 2022
Where next for internal supervision?
The rise of internal supervision is a natural progression from the boom in internal coaching. This trend may be accelerated if a recession squeezes organisational coaching budgets. So a well-balanced appraisal of internal supervision is timely. For some organisations, this trend could involve adapting the job plus internal coach model so some individuals devote more time to coaching to develop mastery before moving into internal supervision. As an emerging field, further research is needed into what supports effective internal supervision, including requirements for supervision of internal supervision. In the meantime, suggestions for developing internal supervision could include:
- requiring individuals first accrue substantial coaching experience before moving into supervision roles. In-house selection processes should be robust
- ensuring good quality, formal supervision training and certification
- addressing the specificities of internal supervision in training and ongoing CPD
- a clear organisational strategy for high quality supervision of internal supervision
- creating communities of practice for internal supervisors across organisations.
Ultimately, only larger organisations have sufficient scale to make inhouse supervision viable. External supervision can nonetheless gain from noticing what works well in internal supervision.
This cross-fertilisation can deepen the systemic impact of supervision. We may also see more use of hybrid models – where organisations leverage both inhouse and external supervision. That could be a powerful combination. The fish may still sometimes not know it is swimming in water. But as inhouse supervision begins to come of age, that seductive metaphor can obscure as much as it reveals. In taking a fresh look, we discover the fish may, in fact, sometimes know more than we realise.
About the author
- Paul Heardman is an APECS Accredited master executive coach and EMCC accredited coaching supervisor. Heardman has a Masters in Coaching from Henley Business School and post-graduate qualifications in both one-to-one and group coaching supervision. He writes regularly on coaching and supervision topics.
CASE STUDY
‘Tiffany’ is a job-plus internal coach in a large organisation. Her coach training was rudimentary, and a busy day job means she’s not currently doing much coaching. Her organisation contracted a highly experienced external supervisor from a leading business school to provide quarterly group supervision for Tiffany and her fellow internal coaches. Tiffany didn’t enjoy the experience: “I felt patronised and judged.” Unpacking this in one-to-one supervision with an internal supervisor, Tiffany recognised her vulnerability to shame triggers and a strong inner critic meant she’d been hyper-sensitive in group supervision to feeling devalued. She felt intimidated by the external supervisor’s impressive credentials, so trust was never really established.
Tiffany’s perception was that her internal supervisor was more sensitive to her context, which made it easier for her to open up, and to bring her ‘real’ issues to supervision. From a psychodynamic perspective, there was rich potential learning for Tiffany in unpacking her own triggers, and how also these might be impacting her own client work with clients. But the limits of only quarterly sessions in group format for external supervision precluded, for Tiffany, a safe enough container for this. Monthly one-to-one sessions, only available to her via inhouse supervision, proved a better fit at that stage for Tiffany.
References and further info
- K Champion, A Maxwell and K Pinder, ‘Supervising Internal Coaches’ in T Bachkirova, P Jackson and D Clutterbuck (eds.), Coaching, Mentoring & Supervision (2nd edn.), OUP, 2021
- E De Haan, Supervision in Action, McGraw Hill OUP, 2012
- K Long, ‘Building Internal Supervision’, in OCM Coach and Mentor Journal, 2012
- K St John-Brooks, Internal Coaching, Routledge, 2014
- K St John-Brooks, ‘Supervision for Internal Coaches’, in J Birch and P Welch, (eds,) Coaching Supervision, Routledge, 2019