When coaches become supervisors they have to take on a new identity. Reveals the five levels of change necessary for the transition.
Barbara Moyes
Do good coaches make good supervisors? Becoming a coaching supervisor is a role transition; what sociologist Erving Goffman calls “embracing” a new identity. But how do coaches become effective supervisors in an emerging profession where there isn’t yet a clear normative framework for the role?

Is it all down to training, or are other issues involved? Are there things supervisors might do to feel more at one with the role and enhance their practice? I conducted research as part of my master’s in coaching to find out.

Robert Dilts’ logical level of change model provides a framework for understanding the transition from coach to supervisor. Sue Knight calls it “a form of personal and organisational hierarchy that affects change and how effectively we bring about change for ourselves”.

The model is a pyramid consisting of, in ascending order, the environment where supervision takes place; the supervisor’s behaviour; capabilities and skills; values and beliefs; and identity.

My research concluded that to take on their new identity successfully, supervisors had to manage all five levels. Dilts’ model has a sixth level, which equates to supervisors’ sense of purpose. Only one sub-set of the supervisors that I interviewed achieved this highest level.

I took the supervisors’ ability to achieve “aha” moments as the measure of their effectiveness – what Peter Hawkins’ research for the CIPD in 2006 showed coaches most wanted from supervision.

Level 1 : Environment

How can the environment, or context, in which the supervision occurs affect a coach’s ability to become a supervisor?

First, a lack of fit between supervisor and supervisee can cause problems. Mark’s supervisees were his senior managers. Logical and task-focused, unlike him they saw supervision as problem-solving.

This so eroded Mark’s confidence that he “held back”, becoming unable to inhabit fully the role of supervisor. Although he did achieve “aha” moments regularly with supervisees outside, he never did so with his managers.

Second, practical issues can play a part. If supervision sessions were infrequent, short and fast-paced, it was hard for supervisors to build trust with supervisees in order to start to feel comfortable in the role and achieve “aha” moments.

These supervisors feared that their supervisees would “find them out”. One of them explained how he coped: “I just play the role of, ‘You’ve bestowed on me this knowledge and I’ll play this role. You ask me and I’ll tell you.’”

Level 2 : Behaviour

A key part of the transition to supervisor is learning how to think and behave like a supervisor. The inexperienced and untrained supervisors I interviewed focused almost entirely on the client, and what the supervisee should do with the client.

Hawkins calls this “psychological casework” ; a limited approach to supervision. I thought of it as “options supervision” because it resulted in the supervisors exploring options and suggesting what they, or other coaches, might do.

Thinking like a supervisor, however, requires a cognitive shift of focus from client to supervisee. In 1992, DiAnne Borders encouraged counselling supervisors to ask themselves how they could intervene so the supervisee would be more effective with current and future clients. To her, supervisees are learners and supervisors are educators who create appropriate learning environments.

All the coaching supervisors told me they took on more roles as supervisors than they did as coaches, including mentors, consultants, “wise guides”, peers and trusted advisers. Although they often described their supervisees as inexperienced (by definition, learners), unlike Borders they did not articulate their role primarily as teachers.

Given the non-directive bias in coaching, and the dilemma that the power inherent in their role posed for them, this is not surprising. Even those who did mention teaching described it as only part of their role, or a role they had to control: “I know I have a side of myself I call Helpful Helen. I warn coaches that Helpful Helen will come in at times and they have to stop her!”

Hawkins found coaches used supervision mainly to develop their skills. I found quite a variation in what supervisors were offering, ranging from insight-based approaches, enabling coaches to “be” in a different way with the client, to developing skills through role-play.

Perhaps coaches emphasise skills development because they doubt their ability. Last year, Erik de Haan found that new coaches often wanted reassurance. But is supervision the best place to get skills development? Would training be more appropriate?

Is the growth of the coach enough? Peter Hawkins and Nick Smith call on supervisors to look at issues from an organisational and individual perspective.Respondents to my research talked about using a systemic perspective, but few mentioned developing the coach to benefit the client, and even fewer cited the hoped-for impact on the organisation.

Level 3 : Capability

Having learnt how to think like supervisors, respondents had to ensure they had the necessary capability. All agreed the skill-set was the same as in coaching – listening, questioning, and so on.

But they also needed a model, or process, of supervision, what Borders calls a cognitive map or conceptual framework for conducting supervision so supervisors are aware of what they are doing and why.

The framework depended on whether supervisors were trained, what their training was, their experience and how they defined their role. The untrained developed their own process for supervision, or fell back on coaching.

Those with experience in counselling, therapy, social work or teaching mapped across their previous skills and knowledge to coaching supervision. This did not appear to be a huge leap, and their confidence was apparent. As one said: “It doesn’t matter as long as you know what you want to do.”

Hawkins and Smith advocate the seven-eyed model developed by Hawkins and Robin Shohet. All the trained supervisors had been taught and were using at least part of this model with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

Essentially therapeutic, it sat uncomfortably with at least one respondent: “It’s the guru-led bit. It’s like nuggets of information are dropped down – it’s not what coaching is.” This supervisor thought “there must be more to supervision than the therapeutic model”. However, none of the supervisors were using a model that had grown organically from coaching, was specific to it, or fitted “what coaching was”.

Level 4 : Values and beliefs

The next challenge for coaches was to align their values and beliefs with their identity as a supervisor. The biggest issue respondents faced here was balancing the power inherent in their role with the value they placed on being non-directive.

Supervisors conceptualised using their power as “being too directive”. Everyone said they were more directive as supervisors than they were as coaches, but they were all reluctant to relinquish the non-directive ethos of coaching completely. Confident supervisors wanted supervision to be a partnership.

Therefore, when supervisees wanted them to be directive, it presented a dilemma. They justified being directive by saying that the supervisees wanted it, or the supervisory model required it. Supervisors who lacked confidence in their role, though, told me they played up their power to bolster their credibility.

A few respondents managed their power by using the contract to make explicit what was permissible. Several managed it by emphasising the partnership: “This is going to be a two-way learning process – I know I’m going to get a lot from you.”

But few were able to acknowledge their power as openly as this experienced supervisor: “I name the elephant in the room at the beginning. I say, ‘I’m qualified, more of an expert than you at the moment.’ It’s about knowing how to use knowledge and expertise in a healthy way and transfer it.”

But sometimes identity and values could not be aligned. Paul, for example, was being “a little more directive” with some supervisees, admitting it was “a bit of a tension” for him. Goffman sheds light on what was happening.

Paul was trying to sustain an image consistent with his non-directive image of himself. He needed to relinquish his commitment to non-directive supervision, or supervise more experienced coaches.

Level 5 : Identity

Goffman has identified three steps in taking on an identity:

  • expressing attachment to it;
  • demonstrating capability in performing it (Dilts’ third level);
  • visibly investing or engaging in it.

Sarah exemplified this process. She told me: “I don’t hold back like in coaching… I feel blessed. Supervision keeps me sane.”

In saying she was able to be fully herself in supervision she was echoing Goffman’s “disappearing completely into the virtual self”. She described supervision as feeding on her life experiences, which she shared with her supervisees in a way she couldn’t with other people.

But what enabled them to do this when it was at odds with their non-directive ethos? Some identified with their supervisees: “There’s huge empathy. But in coaching I might not have experienced it. Then it’s sympathy, not empathy. That empathetic emotion seems to draw me closer to them.”

It helped that supervisors “spoke the same language” as coaches. And supervisors who saw themselves as teachers felt they had permission to “bring more of their agenda” into supervision, whereas in coaching they worked to the client’s agenda.

We saw earlier that there was a sub-set of supervisors who subscribed to a higher purpose. For them, their very commitment helped them to assume their new identity. As Goffman says: “Before a set of task-like activities can become an identity-providing role, these activities must be clothed in a moral performance of some kind.”

This small group of coaches got into supervision after experiencing a significant event, which Dilts calls an imprinting, or identity-defining moment. It committed them to improving coaching as a profession.

The group felt they were on a crusade. They are pioneers, and as Hawkins says, part of the pioneer’s role is to establish new frontiers.

What the research tells us

In summary, although they share the same skill-set, coaching and supervision are not the same, and good coaches do not necessarily make good supervisors. Coaches must learn to think like supervisors. Dilts’ model can pinpoint issues which are holding them back, and help them make the transition.

Different supervisors supervise in different ways. Organisations must find supervisors who offer what they need in terms of experience and approach. Thoughtful organisations look for supervisors who know when to use individual or group supervision; have written about supervision; and have experience of their sector. After that, as in coaching, it’s down to chemistry.

Barbara Moyes is an independent coach, supervisor and consultant. She was previously head of leadership and learning and development at the Department of Health.

The research

I used a phenomenological methodology. A qualitative, inductive, exploratory study was appropriate for a new research field that lacks an extensive knowledge base from which to develop hypotheses. Purposive sampling approaches were used to gain access to 12 supervisors, whom I interviewed, typically for two hours, using a semi-structured interview schedule. Six supervisors also gave me notes of some supervision sessions. I used a data reduction approach to analyse the material.

Learning points

  • Good coaches do not necessarily make good supervisors.
  • Supervision is not coaching. Effective supervisors have to learn how to think like supervisors and focus on the coach, not the client.
  • No coaching-specific supervisory models were used.
  • Supervisors can use Dilts’ framework to help them identify the issues they need to address to enhance their practice.
  • Given the variation in practice, those purchasing supervision need to be sophisticated about what they need and what they’re buying.
  • It remains to be seen whether a supervisory model will emerge that is both distinct from the therapeutic model and specific to coaching.

References

  • E Goffman, Encounters, Allen Lane, London, 1972.
  • R Dilts, Changing Belief Systems with NLP,
  • Meta Publications: Capitola, California, 1990.
  • S Knight, NLP at Work, Nicholas Brealey, London, 2004.
  • P Hawkins, “Coaching supervision: maximising the potential of coaching”, in CIPD Change Agent Report, London, 2006.
  • D Borders, “Learning to think like a supervisor”, in The Clinical Supervisor, 10(2), pp135-148, 1992.
  • E De Haan, “I struggle and emerge: using critical moments to learn about coaching”, Training Journal, pp54-58, April 2007.
  • P Hawkins and N Smith, Coaching, Mentoring and Organisational Consultancy, Open University Press, Maidenhead, 2006.

Volume 4, Issue 1