In this three-part series, Louise Sheppard shares her research on the supervisee perspective in coaching supervision, which has implications for all involved. Part 2: providing supervisee-led supervision
Following on from the first in our series last issue on how supervisees can get the most from coaching supervision, here we argue that supervisors need to provide supervisee-led supervision.
Causal mechanisms
In my doctoral research, I identified three causal mechanisms that affect human nature and might explain supervisees’ experiences: fear, power relations and our natural tendency to learn.
It is important that supervisors and supervisees are aware of these significant social and psychological processes and pay attention to them during supervision.
Fear
Fear is a natural, unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain or harm. The threat can be psychological as well as physical. It comes from a sense that we are not safe in a situation and our response is anxiety and survival behaviour.
In this study, many participants described how fear drove them away from supervisors emotionally and acted as a block to communication, connection and intimacy.
Novice supervisees felt high levels of performance anxiety and other supervisees spoke about being more anxious at the start of every new supervisory relationship.
Fear was heightened in group supervision where supervisees experienced fear of judgement and shame from peers and the supervisor. Working with internal supervisors caused fear in internal coaches around confidentiality and trust.
Supervisees revealed how they reacted to fear by editing what topics they brought and what they disclosed to protect themselves. They employed diversion tactics to distract the supervisor, such as over-talking and asking the supervisor superfluous questions. Supervisors are also affected by fear, and the literature describes how fear in supervisors manifests itself as telling, judging and advising (Shohet, 2008).
Fear impacts coaching supervision because when people are anxious, uncomfortable or fearful, they do not learn (Perry, 2006). Meaningful learning occurs when emotional factors facilitate personal transformation.
The good news is that experienced supervisees have found effective ways of owning and exploring fear in supervision. They have noticed this has resulted in more open relationships with supervisors, increased systemic awareness and enhanced learning (Sheppard, 2016). Supervisors can support supervisees by being transparent about and normalising fear in coaching supervision.
Power
Power is everywhere and where it is, there is resistance (Foucault, 1998). Garvey (2014) points out that supervision has become part of the power discourse and warns that if we are not careful, supervisors can act as neofeudalistic barons and supervisees can subjugate themselves. Participants in the study recognised the power culture in coaching supervision, commenting how the words supervision, supervisor and supervisee suggest a natural hierarchy and encourage a power imbalance.
Supervisees and supervisors were asked to name the sources of power they held in the coaching relationship
(Table 1). In the table, power sources appear relatively balanced, but in the study most supervisees did not identify as equal partners. Supervisors’ higher levels of knowledge and experience give them expert power matched only by very experienced coaches. One supervisor recommended “acknowledging there is a power relationship and making it visible and work in favour of the relationship rather than corrupting it”.
Supervisees noticed as they gained knowledge and experience, the supervisor’s expert power diminished and the relationship was balanced.
The power differential is a supervisor and a supervisee phenomenon. Supervisors can give or take power from supervisees; supervisees can give or take power from supervisors. A supervisor disclosed that ego can lead her to think, “I’ve been there” and want to give expert advice, corrupting the relationship.
Some supervisees were surprised by how much power they had: “I’m probably giving the supervisor too much power and I’m a bit too unwilling to accept it myself.”
Participants identified that power can be used positively and negatively. For example, supervisees perceived supervisors taking a proactive approach to managing supervision for novice supervisees as a positive use of power as it built a safe working environment, yet ‘mentoring’ supervisees was perceived as a negative use as it diminishes supervisee agency. In the study, the impact of the perceived imbalance of power contributes to supervisee anxiety and lack of agency during supervision.
Learning
Learning is a basic human behaviour that occurs instinctively and is key to our adaptation and long-term
survival. This is supported by recent findings in neuroscience which explain that our brains go on developing through life and we have the ability to develop new neural pathways, ‘neural plasticity’, in response to change or to new situations (Siegel, 2010).
Supervisees identified learning as the main benefit from coaching supervision. In the study, novice supervisees spoke about transactional learning, focusing on tools and techniques. As supervisees became more experienced, they described learning to self reflect, developing their ‘internal supervisor’ and examining their assumptions and patterns. Very experienced supervisees emphasised appreciating multiple perspectives, carrying out reflexive learning and learning in a more holistic way.
Supervisees in the study gained value through ‘facilitated’ rather than ‘directed’ learning. They want to be treated as equals and shown respect for what they know and how they learn (Cox, Bachkirova & Clutterbuck, 2010).
Supervisors have an important role in facilitating ‘what’ and ‘how’ supervisees learn. When supervisees are inspired and motivated to take personal responsibility for their learning, it deepens their personal development, practice and professionalism.
The framework for supervisee-led supervision (Sheppard, 2016) is designed for supervisees with an intention to increase their awareness of how to become active participants in their supervision. Thus, ‘supervisee-led supervision’ is at the heart of the inner circle (see Figure 1).
The outer circle of the framework depicts the possible underlying mechanisms that affect coaching supervision – fear, power relations and our natural desire for learning. Inside the circle lie the benefits of coaching supervision, namely learning and how supervisees value the process, what supervisees can do to enable their supervision and what supervisees can do that inhibits it. The small arrows between the boxes illustrate the relationships between the categories.
The benefits of supervision accelerate supervisees’ desire to enable their supervision and reduce their tendency to get in their own way and inhibit their supervision. The larger arrow at the bottom of the inner circle represents supervisee development and maturity over time. It is important to maximise the level of learning at each stage.
Conclusions
Coaching supervisors have a vital role in supporting and facilitating supervisees in their reflective practice and learning. I recommend they adopt a supervisee-led approach to coaching supervision. Guidelines are set out on page 39. Supervisor training programmes would benefit from focusing on a supervisee-led approach, sharing empirical data on the supervisee perspective and developing the awareness of supervisors about the underlying mechanisms of fear and power dynamics in coaching supervision so supervisors can discuss these dynamics with supervisees.
- Dr Louise Sheppard is an executive coach and supervises internal and external coaches. She has a doctorate in coaching and mentoring from Oxford Brookes University. Sheppard is presenting with Graham Lee at the Coaching at Work conference in London on 4 July.
louisesheppard1@btinternet.com
- Next issue: new stages of supervisee maturity
| Sources of power | Sources of supervisor power | Sources of supervisee power |
| ‘Expert’ power | · Having more coaching and supervision knowledge and experience than their supervisees | |
| Roles and responsibilities | · Playing the ‘observer’ role
· Being asked to ‘assess’ the coach by professional bodies or organisations · Raising discussions about ethical issues · Reviewing and potentially ending the relationship |
· Selecting the supervisor
· Being the ‘client’ and paying for the supervisor’s services · Reviewing and potentially ending the relationship |
| Choices during sessions | · Judging how deeply to explore issues
· Choosing how much to disclose · Deciding whether to share their own experience · Selecting the level of support to provide |
· Selecting what to bring
· Stating what they want from the session · Choosing how much to disclose · Deciding what to take from the session
|
Table 1: Sources of perceived power in coaching supervision
SUPERVISOR GUIDELINES
This is not intended to be a complete guide to conducting a supervision session, but a checklist for adopting a supervisee-led approach
- Before working with a supervisee ask yourself:
- What assumptions and beliefs are you holding about the role and responsibilities of a supervisor and supervisee?
- How can you acknowledge power relations and establish an equal partnership with the supervisee?
- How can you minimise the impact of fear (which can manifest as anxiety, fear of judgement and shame) in coaching supervision?
- Co-create the supervisory relationship together by discussing:
- Where the supervisee is in his/her development as a coach and what is important for him/her at this point in time
- Supervisee and supervisor responsibilities
- Your desire to create an equal partnership – identifying what might help and hinder this
- How you will review the relationship and effectiveness of supervision
- Participate actively in the supervision process by:
- At the start
o Focusing on the supervisee’s needs and asking for any reflections since the last session
o Asking the supervisee what he/she wishes to focus on in the session and what the desirable outcomes would be
o Ensuring that the supervisee chooses what they wish to explore first
l During
o Creating a safe space and normalising any anxiety and fear present so that the supervisee can be vulnerable
o Treating supervision as collaborative enquiry, being transparent about any power dynamics that you notice and not being an ‘expert’
o Respecting the supervisee’s theoretical underpinnings and framework and building their confidence in their skills and judgement
o Disclosing your reflections and sharing your own challenging experiences where relevant
o Asking the supervisee about their reflections and learning from the session
o Reviewing how the supervisee experienced the session – what was helpful and what could be done differently going forward
- Regularly reviewing
o The supervisory relationship and process – exploring how the supervisee’s supervision needs are developing over time
o If the supervisee has outgrown you and/or would benefit from an alternative perspective
o How best to support the supervisee to obtain closure when the supervisory relationship ends
Figure 1: Framework for supervisee-led supervision
References
- E Cox, T Bachkirova and D Clutterbuck, The Complete Handbook of Coaching, London: Sage, 2010
- M Foucault, The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin, 1998
- R Garvey, ‘Neofeudalism and surveillance on coaching supervision and mentoring’, in Organisations and People, 21(4), pp41-48, 2014
- B Perry, ‘Fear and learning: Trauma related factors in adult learning’, in Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 110, pp21-27, 2006
- L Sheppard, How coaching supervisees help and hinder their supervision: A Grounded Theory study, PhD, Oxford Brookes University, 2016
http://bit.ly/2BwRnnB - R Shohet, ‘Fear and love in and beyond supervision’, in Shohet, R (ed), Passionate Supervision,London: Jessica Kingsley, 2008
- D Siegel, Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation. New York: Bantam Books, 2010