The problem
Doris has been a member of a coaching supervision group for some months now. She enjoys the contact with other coaches and finds the group supportive. She has learnt a lot about her own practice, particularly from discussing the “difficult” clients that others reflect on.
However, she has noticed that when they bring their “difficult” work to the group, its members can get very agitated, talk over each other, or are critical of how the coach presenting the work is handling their client. Doris finds this aspect of being in group supervision nerve-wracking and at times frustrating.
It has meant that until now she has tended to talk about everything but her most awkward coaching contract. Nevertheless, she knows she needs help with this one. Her “difficult” client is a newly appointed senior executive in a multinational firm, who is struggling to take on the responsibilities of his role. He seems to be stuck.
She has tried a variety of interventions with him but so far he doesn’t appear to have made any changes. While fearful of the group’s judgment of her ability, she would love to receive some ideas for how she might proceed, and others’ interpretation of what might be the problem.
The solution
As a supervisor, it strikes me that there are several issues to consider here. It would appear that Doris doesn’t yet feel safe in the group. I would invite her to share this anxiety with the group so that collectively they could explore whether this is her issue alone, whether others are having the same experience or whether it is an endemic ingredient of the group itself at its specific stage of development. The group would also need to consider how members are contracted to support each other.
Then there is the issue of how the group responds when a difficult client situation is presented. I would find this shift to “agitated” behaviour very exciting. I would want to explore with the group how they may be creating a parallel to the organisational culture and climate in which the client is operating. Working with this parallel process can be hugely informative of the impact the organisational system is having on the client, which may be significant in helping or hindering them to meet coaching goals.
Next we come to the client, who appears to be stuck. I would want every member of the group to explore their own experiences of being stuck, and how they felt about it. This approach would achieve a number of outcomes. Doris would see that she is not alone in having a difficult client, and by comparing experiences and reactions we could normalise the situation for both Doris and her client.
Finally, we could brainstorm some ideas for how Doris could support or challenge her client appropriately. There is a wealth of wisdom in the group and it is always worth the risk of sharing awkward client situations.
ALISON HODGE
Coaching supervisor and change consultant
Some re-contracting sounds about due for the group as a whole. At the professional level this would involve clarifying the differences between “critiquing” and “criticism”, plus firming up process (do supervisees specifically contract by session with the supervisor and group about who supervises, who comments and how?).
Also, and most importantly, an exploration is needed of the psychological level of the overall contract, about what is held in mind by each person about supervision, “siblings”, perfection, anxiety, and so on. These are all useful “norming” processes.
Theoretically, revision about parallel process might be useful for everyone involved. Agitation can be a signal of passivity; of not thinking; which may well be a reflection of the client or organisational culture. It may even may stem from the supervision group, Doris alone, or possibly the supervisor.
In what way does anyone in the room imagine they may not be thinking? Care needs to be taken with supporting evidence for any systemic or client parallels – parallel process is an exciting idea and sometimes an illusion!
A physical enactment of being stuck may provide illumination. Doris should take up a posture and position in the room that expresses her sense of being stuck, and from that place tell the group of her thoughts and physical and emotional feelings.
Then she would move to a posture and position in the room that seems to her to be the direct opposite of being stuck. What is different? What has happened? What ideas about her client and her interventions now come to her?
ROSEMARY NAPPER
Director of tactical and of TAworks
Volume 3, Issue 3