In a previous issue of Coaching at Work, Tatiana Bachkirova argued that supervision should be our professional conscience in practice and be non-mandatory. Experienced coach supervisor Nicola Haskins disagrees
Not enough coaches are coming into supervision – and it’s something the industry is, rightly, concerned about.
The recent explosive growth in supervisor training programmes and publications on coaching supervision, will certainly increase the pool of supervisors and heighten general awareness of it. But I don’t believe this will be enough to get coaches into supervision.
What is needed is a three-pronged strategy to:
demonstrate the benefits of coaching supervision
mandate supervision through our professional bodies; and
encourage the sponsors of coaching to make coaching supervision a condition of employment.
The situation today is even bleaker than it was back in 2007 when Bath Consultancy carried out its research, according to coaching psychologist Jonathan Passmore. Bath’s research revealed that 86 per cent of coaches believed regular supervision is essential for best practice, but only 44 per cent actually put it into practice. Passmore says that across the wider UK coaching population (probably less highly trained than the Bath sample) the figure is more likely to be 25 per cent.
So why is take-up of coaching supervision so poor?
One of the reasons is that we, as coaching supervisors, have done a poor job of positioning supervision as the powerful performance tool it can be. To take one example, though I appreciate the sentiment, I really don’t believe that describing supervision as “our professional conscience in practice” (Bachkirova, 2011)1 is the best way to get ‘wayward’ coaches to part with their money.
We have failed, largely, I believe, because we are still held back
by our origins in clinical psychotherapy. In my seven years as external coaching supervisor at Praesta Partners, a leading UK executive coach organisation, I’ve come to see my role as similar to that of a performance coach.
Originally a psychotherapy supervisor, I’ve had to learn where that training is useful – and where to think afresh to deal with the demands of this emerging discipline. This unashamed emphasis on performance is where coaching supervision starts to deviate from its clinical origins.
Praesta (one of the contributors to the Humphrey and Sheppard survey on supervision provision, vol 7, issue 6), has put it at the heart of its coaching practice since its inception. Monthly individual supervision is mandatory. Supervision is in Praesta’s DNA.
What I have learnt from this regular month-in month-out relationship with the coaches is that my job, quite simply, is to help them do an even better job. If I have done my job properly, the coach will be better resourced to meet the client’s expectations; Praesta’s standards and industry best practice will have been upheld, and the coach will have expanded their skills and their understanding.
In this best of all possible worlds, if the coach does their job even better and the client is better served, then maybe, just maybe, the coach will get more work.
So we have a virtuous circle.
This is the value proposition that we have failed to make clearly enough, though. Mary Beth O’Neill in 2008, talked about her use of a coach to help with her client work: “I no longer see using a coach as a sign of incompetence but as a smart investment.” 2
As Passmore points out, what is missing is the research data to demonstrate the efficacy and impact of supervision. Hopefully, with the growth of doctoral studies into coaching supervision, more data will be forthcoming.
In the absence of data, I carried out soundings among the coaches at Praesta. This is what emerged.
Supervision is effective
When it helps to build the coach’s confidence:
“It reassures me I am doing the best job I can, and allows me to be more confident with my imperfections, not embarrassed or shamed.”
When it is a shared endeavour: “When there is a sense of equality – two of us with different experiences working on the same problem.”
When the supervisor knows the coach and can make reference to them and their practice over time: “Supervision helps you take on your craft and your skill. It builds up over time. It’s not just about theory. Without supervision how do you know as a coach that you are developing?”
When the coach is resourced to go beyond their own mental models:“The supervisor provides me with different questions, and I come out with a different way of approaching the situation. I base my decisions on my world experience – the supervisor can help me widen that lens.”
When it contributes to the coach’s development: “When it makes a link to my practice, when it helps me evolve my practice and when it pushes my practice to a place it is not going to go without supervision.”
Supervision is less effective
When it is purely case-orientated: “Without making the links to my wider practice.”
When there is a sense of managerial checking up rather than shared learning
When the supervisor takes the expert position:“When the supervisor tells me what to do – it feels like I’m being given a fish rather than being taught how to fish.”
When there is lack of congruence: “The supervisor has to walk their talk.”
So, effective supervision has far-reaching consequences beyond the case, having an impact on the coach and their practice. This corroborates the early research carried out by Passmore3 and the recent research by Humphrey and Sheppard (vol 7, issue 6).
My second point is that, unlike Bachkirova1, I believe, if supervision is not mandated (at least initially), human frailty will always get in the way, and no amount of worthy discussion about professional consciences is going to change that. However, the only way we can mandate regular supervision for independent coaches is through accrediting bodies. This leads me to my third point.
Bachkirova suggests supervision is a better way of supporting performance improvement than accreditation1. I don’t believe that it is either/or, although I agree that some of the approaches are “crude and static” and the proliferation of accrediting bodies is bewildering. Those aren’t, however, reasons to get rid of accreditation altogether. They are reasons to become more discriminating about which professional body you align with.
Having supervised coaches through accreditation, I have seen them become far more intentional and effective in their coaching.
My final point is that sponsors of coaching have a significant role to play in the professionalisation of our industry by making evidence of proper supervision a prerequisite for hiring new coaches. But we’re not there yet.
The coaching market is oversupplied and there’s a cold wind blowing out there. My hope is that this tightening of the market will lead to a shake-out.
In the meantime, we have our part to play, so let’s:
stand on our own two feet and see coaching supervision as a discipline in its own right
make the value proposition
for supervision mandate it through our professional bodies
educate sponsors to make supervision a prerequisite.
That way, we might get more coaches into supervision. Who knows, like O’Neill, they might even discover a savvy investment!
Nicola Haskins is an independent APECS accredited executive coach supervisor nicola.haskins@virgin.net
References
1 T Bachkirova, ‘Guiding light’, in Coaching at Work, vol 6, issue 5
2 M B O’Neill, Executive Coaching with Backbone and Heart, Jossey-Bass, 2008
3 J Passmore and S McGoldrick, International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(2), Sept 2009
Further reading
V Shaw, ‘The next step’, in Coaching at Work, vol 7, issue 4
Coaching at work, volume 8, issue 1