What are the benefits of coaching supervision?

I think there are two strands – the first is the opportunity for the coach to talk over their work, in a way which allows to the supervisor to become a second ear or eye to what is happening, and which may bring new perspectives to bear about the client’s situation. 

The second strand relates to the support and understanding which comes from this process, which furthers the coach’s ability to work in complex scenarios, and to understand their own part in the coaching relationship.

Coaches who work with individuals in an organisational context, are entering into an often unknown environment, in which they expose themselves to thoughts and feelings, without necessarily having access to information that can make sense of those experiences. As coaches, we attempt to find out more about the context, and circumstances which coachees are bringing to their coaching sessions, and interventions may in that sense, be quite complex, involving organisational analyses, and stakeholder interviews. 

Even so, the relationship which emerges between coach and coachee will carry features which are hard to recognise or understand, and which may derail the course of the coaching, as much as strengthen it. Exploring both content and process in a supervisory relationship, can illuminate individual and organisational dynamics, frequently allowing new possibilities to come to the fore.

One benefit supervision brings for the coach is having support with elements of the coaching relationship which are especially challenging, i.e. understanding blocks to growth, change and development, , managing expectations, success and limitations, in the client and oneself.. Another benefit is support in identifying coaches’ individual agendas and how these influence the coaching relationship and understanding contextual issues which may either support or undermine the coaching process.

Benefits for the coachee include an enhanced opportunity to work to task, and time within the coaching relationship, and to gain from the coach’s own reflective processes and learning.

Benefits for the organisation include a surety that the coach is working towards professional standards, and is able to manage themselves in complex and challenging situations. Supervision may additionally yield additional data about patterns and trends in an organisation or sector, which might support and further understanding about organisational culture and strategic direction.

The term supervision, however, is one to query. It comes from mainly a therapeutic, or ‘human-services’ framework, and has connotations of transfer of knowledge, expert to learner, within a defined field of practice, rather than a mutual exploration between two people. One may have more experience, or knowledge than the other, but a supervisor may well meet individuals whose skills and knowledge outweigh their own. The task of the supervisor is to recognise that they are not there to provide better answers, but to bring their analytic and supportive skills to bear on the practice of the other.

Coaches come from a variety of backgrounds, with knowledge and experience in organisational change, HR, in business planning, in entrepreneurial behaviours. Words such as trusted advisor, mentor, shadow consultancy, may be more appropriate in these circumstances.

Do we need to develop standards for coaching supervision or guidelines for best practice?

I think we do, but in the main to support the self-governing activities of an emerging profession, and might be through an expansion or clarification of the ethical code. I am opposed to anything that over-determines professional behaviour, in terms of frequency, ratios of coaching hours to supervision. After all, this suggests that coaching and coaching supervision only happens in formal and structured relationships. Increasingly managers incorporate this as an approach in line-management and leadership.

I would not want to see supervisors being used as a quality assurance system to guarantee the quality of the coach’s work with their client – as supervision is a developmental process rather than an assessment of coaching competencies.

I think there is a dilemma about where responsibility lies for the quality assurance of coaching, with the individual coach, the purchasing organisation, or a professional body. Whilst I think a professional body must uphold standards, I do not think it can take on responsibility for quality assurance activities that belong to others. If coaching is seen as an organisational intervention, commissioned to meet particular organisational needs (and those of individuals within it), then the organisation has a right to expect high standards, (governed by a professional body) and has responsibility to assure itself of those.

On the other hand, clients should not have to check that every coach is acting ethically – they should be able to assume that they are. The prime responsibility must be with the individual coach to behave in a professional way, working to standards embodied in a code of ethics. The role of the professional body is to regulate and enforce any breach of the code of ethics.

I think that there is a value in comparing coaching with the growth and development of other new professions. In my other consulting activities, market forces will determine whether or not I am hired, and re-hired, and how I am viewed against the prevailing professional climate. 

Maybe coaching, like therapy, or teaching, assumes a vulnerable client - one who is open to exploitation, or where dangers might occur if professional standards are not rigorous. Is the coaching client necessarily vulnerable, what capacities do they have to accept or reject the nature of what occurs? These are some of the questions that I would like to debate with others.

What skills, experience, qualifications and expertise should be expected of supervisors?

Experience in coaching over time is essential, rather than a formal qualification in supervision.

It is important that supervisors recognise that coaching supervision is not the same as coaching. Itrequires perceptual and analytic skills, working at one remove from the client, and rigorous evidencing of one’s senses and thinking in the work of your client, with their client. 

Some specific sectoral experience may be an advantage.

It is also necessary to have the ability to manage one’s own feelings in relation to the supervisee and recognise that the difficulties and successes emerging in the coach/client relationship belong to that relationship, and that this is what you have been supporting. This involves managing a sense of pride, loyalty, envy and competition in relation to one’s client.  

I hope that supervisors want to see their supervisees develop and grow in the field, and where appropriate to provide opportunities for that development (much as a mentor). And at the same time, to have the capacity to not know, and to learn from one’s supervisee.

In addition, they should have the capacity to keep abreast of developments in the field, and to be contributing to those developments.

Should supervision/supervisors be regulated/accredited in some way?

I would expect to see coaching following professional lines, and therefore guided by its ethics and training, rather than being subject to regulatory processes.

Who would regulate, and who would accredit, and who would pay for it?  

However, supervisors do need to explore and debate and grow in the craft of supervision. I think this can be done in discussion groups, in which supervisors come together with colleagues, and experienced professionals in this field. I see this as a community of professional practice with a range of voices and inputs.

The European Mentoring and Coaching Council Code of Ethics requires that coaches work within the realms of their competence, and this in itself should be sufficient. Regulation would lie within the domain of the part of the professional body that concerns itself with ethical behaviours.

If coaches follow professional standards and guidelines, then they will want to seek out talented and experienced coaches whose work and support they value, to act as their supervisors. But I accept it may be difficult for new entrants to know who they might approach, and who would offer them quality supervision, without some kind of register.

Has supervision had an effect on the quality or impact of your or your clients’ coaching?

I know that it has. However, I also know that supervision is not a linear, cause and effect activity. Supervision allows for the mulling over of client work, which can yield new perspectives. Just thinking differently about a client, and approaching their issues from a different stance will make a difference. Enabling your supervisee to work at the edge of their capabilities, to have confidence in their work, will also help create new and different outcomes for their clients.

On a very practical note, supervision can help coaches think through the nature of the contract, pace of contact to support change, difficulties in engagement, getting stuck and what to do when impetus is lost. 

Feedback that I have had from my supervisees include:

Karen is Principal, KIzod Consulting, Guildford, Surrey, and Co-Director, Coaching for Leadership and Professional Development, The Tavistock Institute. London.

Terms of use        

You may not publish or reproduce this material for without the written permission of the author.  Click here for our full terms and conditions.