In this new regular column, Paul Heardman puts coaching supervision under the spotlight, exploring how this comparatively young discipline is still evolving.
This issue: How does supervision differ from ‘coaching the coach’ and why may the recent boom in coaching supervision have a shadow side?
A common question people ask when training as coaching supervisors is: “How is supervision different to coaching the coach?”
It’s a good question. And one that gets to the heart of our beliefs around coaching supervision.
One standard response is that the coaching supervisor is expected to look beyond the individual(s) we’re working with in supervision, to consider also the interests and wellbeing of the coach’s own clients. That’s an important emphasis, and one easily forgotten, especially when the coach’s needs in supervision appear pressing.
Another perspective on how coaching supervision may differ from coaching the coach is through an intentional emphasis on the systemic lens in supervision. Of course, many coaches regard themselves as working systemically. But a distinguishing feature of coaching supervision is, arguably, its deliberative focus as a space to ‘lean back’ and notice more about the wider system the coach is operating in.
At least, that’s the theory. In practice, how good are we really as coaching supervisors in bringing a truly systemic mindset? What enables us to hold space for noticing wider systemic dynamics shaping a supervisee’s coaching, or the supervision itself? In particular, do we have an ongoing personal practice as supervisors to support the development of a systemic view, not just in our supervision work but in how we experience life itself?
Such questions gain urgency through those societal and global developments which now make it increasingly untenable for coaching to ignore its rootedness in the wider systemic context, such as the climate and ecological crisis, issues of racial justice and the growing awareness around organisational trauma.
Background
But what supports the coaching supervision profession to respond appropriately in the face of all this? And how does the system of coaching supervision itself hold these topics?
If we look at coaching supervision’s development in the 21st century, originally it drew heavily on models and mindsets from supervision in adjacent fields such as psychotherapy and social work. There were initially few people trained specifically as coaching supervisors. Hawkins and Schwenk (2006) described coaching supervision back then as “dressed in borrowed clothes”. That often meant applying a too narrow psychological frame, risking ‘pathologising’ both the coach and the coach’s clients.
This shifted rapidly in the 2010s, heralding a new phase in coaching supervision’s development. As coaching continued to boom, new coaching supervision approaches also flourished. These consciously embraced organisational and wider stakeholder dimensions, for example, Edna Murdoch’s ‘full spectrum’ model and Erik de Haan’s work on relational supervision.
The past five years have seen a further turn in coaching supervision’s development, with an explosion in new coaching supervision courses and many coaches now training as coaching supervisors. Fuelled by post-Covid shifts towards online working, coaching supervision has become much more accessible, improving diversity in the profession.
Yet might this rapid expansion also bring risks, for example, to the depth or quality of coaching supervision? There has been surprisingly little debate on the potential consequences of this fast growth. For example, what now is required of supervision of supervision? At one level, the market will sort itself out. But at a deeper level, some questions we might ask:
- What is coaching supervision being called to contribute in this new phase of its development?
- How do we ensure collectively we’re doing the work which the challenges of these times demand?
- What now, in this decade, is uniquely required of coaching supervisors that is distinct from the role of coaches?
“Supervision can fall into the trap of making the supervisee the client and this can end in the supervisor effectively coaching the coach.”
Peter Hawkins and Eve Turner
No easy answers. But we should ask these questions at least periodically, given coaching supervision’s role in leaning back and noticing what we are not noticing. Otherwise, we may unconsciously collude with the same dynamics as our clients.
For me, part of the answer is about continually holding the wider system in mind. As Hawkins and Turner (2020) argue, this includes developing our capacity to manage complex and conflicting needs in a system. It includes noticing how our work is always embedded in ecological, social, cultural and organisational contexts, and being systemic in our contracting.
Three brief examples:
- Mental health topics now arise frequently in coaching and supervision Supervision, has, of course, an important restorative function. But if we focus predominantly on this (for example, helping the coach with their oxygen mask), do we sometimes become part of an avoidance of exploring the deeper systemic causes? And do we reflect on the cost of such choices in our supervision?
- Organisational trauma Similarly, chronic high stress in organisations can signal wider systemic issues such as organisational trauma. As supervisors, we may then feel pulled towards ‘rescuer’ energy and Drama Triangle entanglements. Holding the systemic lens reminds us to stay curious about parallel process or what more may be happening beyond the individual. This enables supervision to resource the coach to become more systemic in their own interventions
- Racial justice Charmaine Roche (2022) writes powerfully about decolonialising supervision and how many current reflective practice frameworks are deeply bound in systemic bias. Becoming more systemic here is part of ethical practice. Myira Khan’s (2024) ‘Nine-Eyed’ Anti-Oppressive Supervision Model helps us add social, cultural, political, historical and structural contexts back into supervision.
To conclude, John Whittington suggests the real client is always the wider system, not simply the individual being coached. Similarly, Hawkins says we’re never supervising an individual but always through an individual.
Both are soulful invitations for us to view supervision with the wider system in mind. Being human, the times we inevitably forget this are when perhaps we may fall back onto ‘coaching the coach’. Conversely, when we stay connected to our deeper capacities to work more systemically, then the true potential of supervision can unfold.
- Paul Heardman is an EMCC Global accredited coaching supervisor. He has been supervising coaches since 2017 and also provides supervision of supervision for fellow coach supervisors. Paul received the Coaching at Work Editor’s Award for Outstanding Contribution to Coaching Supervision and Coaching in 2023. He sits on the board of EMCC UK as director for supervision practice.
References
- de Haan, E. (2012). Supervision in Action: A Relational Approach to Coaching and Consulting Supervision. Open University Press
- Francis, T., Moir, E., Evans, G., & Roques, A. (2022). A Framework for Working with Organisational Trauma. Meus White Paper.
- Hawkins, P., & Schwenk, G. (2006).Coaching Supervision: Maximising the Potential of Coaching. CIPD paper.
- Hawkins, P., & Turner, E. (2020). Systemic Coaching. Routledge.
- Khan, M. (2024). Anti-oppressive supervision: developing an approach to working within diversity. EMCC UK blog.
- Murdoch, M., & Arnold, J. (2013). Full Spectrum Supervision: Who you are is how you coach. Panoma Press.
- Roche, C. (2022). Decolonialising Reflective Practice and Supervision. Leeds Beckett University.
- Whittington, J. (2020). Systemic Coaching & Constellations (3rd ed). Kogan Page.