With the CIPD’s research on coaching supervision, we have begun to lay the foundations for the development of practice in coaching supervision and the development of a common understanding of what coaching supervision means and what good practice looks like. The research shows that although coaches overwhelmingly agree that they should have supervision, most manage without it. Many coaching organisers also agree that coaches should have supervision, but less than a quarter provide it, according to the research unveiled at the CIPD’s annual Coaching at Work conference in September. These findings illustrate just how varied practice is. For those coaches who do have supervision, it will most often be one-to-one and face-to-face. This may be combined with group supervision; some may also have telephone supervision, either one-to-one or as part of a group. Those acting as supervisors may have experience, and perhaps training, as a supervisor of counselling, psychotherapy or coaching, or may be a peer.
The benefits of supervision
The research was carried out by Dr Peter Hawkins and Gil Schwenk, co-founder/chairman and principal consultant, respectively, of the Bath Consultancy Group. Based on two web questionnaires and four focus groups, the project was designed to identify good practice and develop guidance for coaching organisers in getting optimum value from their coaching services. Schwenk reports that the focus groups had been generous in sharing the benefit of their coaching as they were “the pioneers, the early leaders, who have experienced the value of supervision”. He adds: “There is a striking contrast between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ in supervision. There are those who do not have supervision because they do not perceive it to be necessary or important. There is a growing minority, though, who view it as essential and highly valuable to their practice.” This is verified by the responses to the web questionnaires. Less than half of coaches (44 per cent) have supervision on a regular basis, but will typically have two or more types of supervision. An interesting factor is that more than half of those who have supervision started doing so in the past two years.
Coaches explain that they do not have supervision because their organisation does not require them to (41 per cent), it is too expensive (17 per cent), or they cannot find an appropriate supervisor (17 per cent). Organisers of coaching also cite expense (17 per cent), and difficulties in finding a supervisor (13 per cent) as reasons for not providing supervision. Dr Hawkins says: “We can see these as symptoms of a new and forming profession where supervision is only beginning to be established.” Hawkins’ and Schwenk’s research defines supervision as “a structured formal process for coaches, with the help of a coaching supervisor, to attend to improving the quality of their coaching, grow their coaching capacity and support themselves and their practice. Supervision should also be a source of organisational learning.” This means that effective coaching supervision should achieve four key goals:
- assure the quality of coaching
- provide continuing professional development for the coach
- provide support for the coach
- draw organisational learning from insights that coaches develop in their coaching relationships
It is important to note that there are other elements of good practice. Coaches should have supervision regularly and should have access to both group and individual supervision. Good supervision practice also involves paying close attention to ethical and confidential boundaries and takes account of the needs of the client, and the organisation, as well as the coach. Additional benefit can be gained by combining individual and group supervision. Group supervision can help to create a community of practice within an organisation, and a common understanding of what good practice means. It can provide an important way of opening up practice to scrutiny to enable coaches to get feedback on their practice the case study (left) shows how this is achieved at PricewaterhouseCoopers. Equally, coaches need access to one-to-one supervision.
The issues
Confidentiality issues are critical in supervision and are most difficult to control in a group situation. The most effective protection is probably to ascertain that ethical and confidentiality issues are addressed both in assessing coaches for selection and during training. Shaun Lincoln, director of coaching and mentoring at the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL), asserts that the importance of confidentiality is always addressed on CEL coach training programmes. “If you want to put an end to coaching in your organisation, then break confidentiality,” he says. We found that external coaches are usually expected to make their own arrangements for personal supervision but that purchasers of coach training tended to assume this was happening. Schwenk says: “Supervision should be an absolute requirement for external coaches. It needs to be talked about at the assessment stage. In practice, organisations often assume that external coaches will have supervision, yet they really need to delve into the format and frequency to ensure that these are really satisfactory.” Our research shows that supervision has benefits for coaches, their clients and the organisations they work for and that effective supervision is weakened if it neglects any one of these. Most importantly, it highlights that good supervision is fundamental to making sure that coaches are able to work effectively and that organisations attain the best value for their coaching services.
Eileen Arney is adviser, learning, training and development at the CIPD
For more information on the Bath Consultancy Group visit www.bathconsultancygroup.com
The full report of this research will be published at the end of November as a Change Agenda entitled Coaching Supervision: Maximising the Potential of Coaching (www.cipd.co.uk/changeagendas). Key points from the CIPD’s research on coaching supervision are available as an event guide entitled Coaching Supervision (www.cipd.co.uk/eventreports)
Case study: PricewaterhouseCoopers
Group supervision for internal coaches
There is a long tradition of using group supervision to support internal coaches at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). Supervision sessions are held monthly and last for three hours. The sessions are led by an external facilitator, who is always an experienced coach with a psychology or psychotherapy background and experience of, if not necessarily qualifications in, coaching supervision. Group members take an active part throughout the coaching sessions, even when not presenting a case, by listening, observing, questioning and challenging. In addition to seeing the range of reactions to their own practice, each member of the group benefits by gaining an understanding of how others are working and learns what approaches others are using.
Barbara Picheta, leader, Coaching Centre of Excellence at PwC notes that coach supervision is about continuing to learn and reflect on one’s practice. It is also about risk management and quality assurance and should have a supportive and a corrective function. “To open one’s work to scrutiny is important to best practice in any helping activity,” she comments. Group supervision for internal coaches does, of course, raise particular challenges around the issue of confidentiality. Names and details are routinely changed in discussing cases, and the focus will normally be on the work of the coach and the coaching relationship rather than the individual being coached. However, says Picheta, “coaches contract around this and revisit it quite regularly; it is important to focus on ethical issues” .
Further case studies demonstrating good practice are available at:
www.cipd.co.uk/c
Learning points
What is supervision?
A structured formal process for coaches, with the help of a supervisor, to improve the quality of their work, increase their capacity and support them and their practice. It should also be a source of organisational learning
Who does it benefit?
Supervision ensures that coaches, clients and organisations get optimum value from coaching
Who should lead supervision sessions?
Supervisors may have the experience and possibly training to be a supervisor of coaching, counselling or psychotherapy however, there is a valuable place for peer supervision too
What about external coaches?
It is important to find out whether they have supervision arrangements to promote their personal development. There can also be value in bringing internal and external coaches together in group sessions.