Training Journal: Coaching Supervision Plans Considered

Previously I had been doubtful about ‘coaching supervision’ because the coaching ‘profession’ has yet to arrive as a ‘profession’.

The new development of “the Association for Coaching, the Association for Professional Executive Coaching and Supervision, the European Mentoring and Coaching Council and the International Coaching Federation” in coming up with the ‘framework/guide/code for coach supervision’ may be heading towards the right direction?, though, personally, with the ever new thinking in the coaching sphere including from academic & industry researches, theory-to-practice innovations, etc; the proposed ‘coach supervision framework/guide/code’ should consider the academic, practitioner, and stakeholders (including buyers of coaching services) perspectives in the development of the ‘coach supervision framework/guide/code’.

Is there a danger of the more established coaching bodies/entities dominating the ‘coach supervision’ domains, and the niche coaching players being left out here?

I am still unclear of the statement: “Coaches are being told that a plan to introduce professional supervision to the industry is not meant as a ‚Äúpolicing mechanism”.

Although one of the purpose of the initiative to come up with the ‘coach supervision framework/guide/code’ is to elevate the coaching ‘profession’, it does sound to me that there will ultimately be some elements of ‘policing’(whether directly obvious or not).

A clear definition of what ‘coaching supervision means and encompasses would be critical to the success of the concept of ‘coach supervision’? Does that makes sense?

Many existing coaching bodies/providers/players already have a ‘code of conduct’, where registered coaches with them, could be removed from their registers for ‘poor coaching performances’ or ‘malpractices’.

Most of the ‘supervision’ [both developmental & proactive i.e. supervise to upskill + 'policing' (compliant & reactive) i.e. ensuring the coach practises the preferred 'structural approach to coaching' as spelt out by their respective coaching bodies] is done via formal & informal voluntary mentor, peer, & ‘support’ coaching activities currently.

The move by the few major coaching bodies/providers/players in the UK Coaching Roundtable is hopefully the right direction to establishing a ‘universal practitioner code’, that will ultimately elevate coaching into a true profession.

If feasible, wouldn’t it be great if niche coaching players could be part of the input process to arrive at the proposed universal ‘coach supervision framework/guide/code’?

Or shall we possibly go through the vicious circle of niche players using the developed ‘coach supervision framework/guide/code’ and then ‘adopting & refining’ it (and then setting that as their respective ‘coach supervision framework/guide/code’)?

What if at the onset, the niche players are ‘part of the game’, in the inaugural universal ‘coach supervision framework/guide/code’ conceptualization, development, and implementation processes?

Meta-cheerio.

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Billy, you make valid observations – what kind of coach supervision, who’s included in developing the guidelines and what coaches will be affected and how? Good move for coaching? – What do others think?

Supervision may not be the most appropriate term. As an assessor of applications for International Coach Federation (ICF) credentials, I listen to many applicants, who may have a text book understanding of coaching, but who are unable to apply that understanding to an ongoing coaching conversation. It occurs to me that working with a coach-trainer who can observe and provide feedback on coaching would be a big help.

As for niche coaching, I would distinguish between coaching (as defined by ICF) that is done in service of niche markets and consulting/training/mentoring of niche disciplines. I have the utmost respect for both methodologies, and I do see them as different.

I also think that we need to look at the role the commercial value of the terms “coach” and “coaching” plays in the definition of coaching, training coaches, and determining skills and awarding credentials. If coaching successfully distinguishes itself as a profession, then rigorous training standards, including observation or supervision, would seem appropriate. If coaching is a term whose meaning is driven by the market rather than by practice, training and credentialing will be increasingly a matter of paying a fee for a piece of paper and some initials.

Molly, I am with you to have a ‘coach-trainer’ who may ‘supervise’, ‘mentor’ or ‘support’ the coach through observations and providing feedbacks & feedforwards.

However, what if some cost-benefit analysis can be made before engaging a ‘coach-trainer, or is this a no issue, since this may be a ‘compulsory practice’ in future?

Just to share. Within my coaching practice, I often elicit cues and feedbacks from the coachee himself/herself to ‘test’ if I am ‘efficient’ and ‘effective’ by periodically (when the coaching conversation allows the ‘window of opportunity’ to seek feedbacks) by asking: “Are we moving in the right direction and getting to the hearts of what and where we are seeking to achieve in this session?”; “Are you comfortable with the way and rate we are progressing in this session, and what do you want to see change?”; “Are you getting the necessary feelings of support, sense of safety and assurance, feelings of respect, and doses of challenge from me as your coach in this session so far? “From a scale of 1 – 10 (with 1 being of the lowest), which would you want me to move up the scale?”; etc.

The purpose is ‘self-supervision’ via real-time feedbacks from the coachee.

In a way, I see this as a self-imposed supervision tracking mechanism that could be more meaningful to the coachee (as I get from the coachee’s mouth himself or herself).

Even with the coach-trainer’s ‘supervision’, ultimately it is the coachee’s experience of the coaching that really matters. Am I right?

To me, the coachee’s (and sometimes the stakeholders or sponsors) measurement of the coaching experience and the ‘hard’ evidences that the coaching goal/outcome is achieved, together to some extent, that the coach follows universally ‘acceptable’ coaching practices, are some of the ‘components’ that may be explored in the designing of the proposed ‘coach supervision’ framework/guide/code. What do you think?

Rigorous coach & coaching standards I would definitely agree with you Molly. However, the coaching ‘profession’ has yet to arrive at a consensus on the formulae of universally accepted rigorous standards?

Even, take for example: “Listening skills” (within the context of coaching), has a full range/continuum of competency benchmarks/standards, that may differ between certifying/credentialling bodies.

We have yet to be able to define with ‘precision’ the subtle differences between different levels of listening skills and even more challenging to capturing evidences of the level of listening skills and assessing and benchmarking it correctly?

Appreciate the feedbacks on my thoughts whether positive or negative. I promise I will thank you for making my understanding about coaching better.

Meta-cheerio.

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Molly,

What’s your feeling on the state of coaching right now? Is the word being defined by practice, training and credentialing–or the marketplace?

Mark

Molly, on closer reading of your comment: “….may have a text book understanding of coaching, but who are unable to apply that understanding to an ongoing coaching conversation. It occurs to me that working with a coach-trainer who can observe and provide feedback on coaching would be a big help.”; I got it & appreciate the need for a ‘coach-trainer’ or ‘supervisor’ especially for ‘newer’ coaches who are embarking on taking coaching professionally.

What are your thoughts on those coaches who already have professional practices established? How could we make ‘coach supervision’ work here? Any thoughts to share?

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Dear All,
Thanks for the posting the press release from the UK Coaching Bodies Roundtable and the comments to date which are all very valid & thoughtful.

I was the UK ICF rep for the Steering Group for the project and there is a wealth of information and work ‘behind’ this short press release. There is no way a short press release can really cover the effort that went into this work nor the next steps. For anyone interested the documents ‘behind’ the project are well worth a read (although lengthy- the shorter one is 24 pages). I can certainly forward to anyone that’s interested. Just email me direct.

I am also in the process of producing a short 3 page article from the work done for the global ICF magazine. This will provide more context. I will post here in August.

best wishes

Hi,
As promised here’s the article re the ‘Supervision’ project alluded to in the press release, it’s from International Coach Federation’s (ICF) Global newsletter – http://www.coachfederation.org/includes/docs/august09.pdf .

Article on supervision on page 12.

best wishes
Claire

Claire, thanks for pointing to the article on “Supervision”. I look forward to the official document when it is finalized.

I am still not convinced that ‘supervision’ will really add more value to the coachee, as it is the coach’s ethical inclinations, responsibilities, and passion (of course, having the basic coaching skills & competencies), that will drive the efficiency, effectiveness and results of the coaching.

I will be interested to know which aspects of ‘supervision’ should be supervised – coaching knowledge, skills, aptitudes, attitudes, behaviours, processes, structures, etc.? Effective supervision to me requires encompassing a coaching approach within the supervision work + skills & experiences probably gained via proven coaching practice, consulting, teaching, mentoring, counseling, advising, or in one’s specialty + previous contextual experiences especially in areas where one is engaged in coach supervision (more so in having worked/experienced in diversity and different cultural contexts).

I am not sure whether one who already has successful coaching practices, would want to be ‘supervised’ (and incur additional costs & time); as his/her coachees probably would not find supervision necessary as they are already experiencing successes.

Some of my key concerns are: What are the exact purposes of coach supervision? Will supervision results in better coaching? Are we saying that the coachee is not smart enough to disengage from coaching, or find some avenues for disengagement from the coach-coachee relationship if the coach is not up to mark? (if coachee is smart, is supervision really necessary then?). Will supervision be driven more for commercial-related reasons than solely for the ‘upgrading’ & ‘sustainment’ of the ‘supervisee’s’ coaching practice?

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

To add on to my previous post on this thread. I fully support ‘mentoring’ in coaching, peer coaching, buddy coaching (whichare more informal in nature); as I find them to be more attractive options compared to the formal ‘coach supervision’.

I am more willing to shift my perspectives when I have a clearer and a more definitive description of what ‘coach supervision’ means.

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Forgive me for diving into the conversation and then disappearing. Illness and a big project both intervened.

What do I mean by supervision? Good question. Personally, I find the parental tone of the word offputting, though when I use it I tend to overlook that.

When I talk about supervision I’m imagining working with a mentor coach or supervisor (and again, would love a better term) who would observe coaching calls either live or recorded and provide feedback based on the ICF Core Coaching Competencies. I can imagine this being done in a number of ways:

1. Group supervision/mentoring. One or more mentor coaches work with a group of coaches. Every week one of the participant coaches submits a 30-minute recording for the entire group to hear. (And yes, there are confidentiality issues. Perhaps the members of the group coach each other to simplify things.) Mentor coaches would facilitate discussion of the session using the ICF competencies as the chief point of reference. If both coach and coachee were members of the group, the discussion could begin with debriefing them.

My enthusiasm for what I am calling supervision for lack of a better term stems from my experience as an assessor in the ACC, PCC, and MCC exam processes. I learn so much from being an assessor, particularly from the discipline of using the ICF competencies as the point of reference. Using the competencies in this way forces a deep contemplation of what they are and how they may be employed in coaching.

Billy CH Teoh wrote:
“Molly, on closer reading of your comment: “….may have a text book understanding of coaching, but who are unable to apply that understanding to an ongoing coaching conversation. It occurs to me that working with a coach-trainer who can observe and provide feedback on coaching would be a big help.”; I got it & appreciate the need for a ‘coach-trainer’ or ’supervisor’ especially for ‘newer’ coaches who are embarking on taking coaching professionally.

“What are your thoughts on those coaches who already have professional practices established? How could we make ‘coach supervision’ work here? Any thoughts to share?”

Billy, I imagine that coaches who have practices established would choose to participate (or not) in supervision based on their perceived need. I’ve been coaching for 14 years and have the ICF’s MCC credential. Nonetheless, I’d be interested in participating in a supervision for the sake of the learning.

If supervisory sorts of training and mentoring were approved for ICF Continuing Coaching Education Units, some folks would be motivated to participate in order to meet requirements for certification or re-certification. And if a coach is thriving without supervision and has no interest, I suppose that is their business.

Bill CH Teoh wrote: “However, what if some cost-benefit analysis can be made before engaging a ‘coach-trainer, or is this a no issue, since this may be a ‘compulsory practice’ in future?”

Billy, see my previous post for some thoughts on this. Basically, an individual coach will work out the cost-benefit to himself or herself based on their desire for ongoing learning, their assessment of the specific training being offered, and their needs for education or continuing education relative to certification.

Molly, I fully agree with you when you said: “I’d be interested in participating in a supervision for the sake of the learning.”

However, learning can come from many avenues and it is on the onus of the learner to want or has the motivation to learn. Supervision is great for feedbacks and inputs and for refining one’s coaching skills. However, these could also be achieved via peer coaching, co-coaching, and mentor coaching (my perspective of what mentor coaching means as in practice, is that, a trained coach is mentored or ‘hand-held’ for the first six months of practice immediately after coach training graduation by his/her trainer-coach).

Unless there is a clear definition of what coach supervision encompasses, who should be subjected to supervision, and how will coach supervision value-add compared to other areas that would elevate a coach’s performance, development and transformation, I would see coach supervision as something optional than compulsory.

Anyway, the coach is smart enough to know if he/she needs supervision or using other avenues to achieve the same goals; and the clients are smart enough to measure any coach performance whether the coach is supervised or not.

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Billy wrote: “Unless there is a clear definition of what coach supervision encompasses, who should be subjected to supervision, and how will coach supervision value-add compared to other areas that would elevate a coach’s performance, development and transformation, I would see coach supervision as something optional than compulsory”

I agree.

Hello,

Billy & Molly – Apologies for being off-line to this discussion. I forgot to tick the box re notification of comments!

I think we’re probably all in agreement and if we were in the same room we’d discuss, hear each other’s points and more or less agree. We are all from differnt parts of the world and terminology, experience etc has an impact.

I’ll just cover my perspective rather than repeat previous comments. I too don’t like the word ‘supervision’ for the reasons mentioned. it’s what’s covered in the word that’s important. For me it’s coaching & feedback AND reflective practise ie discussing your client cases with another coach to have a different perspective. Like Molly I’m an ICF assessor and you can see the difference between the coaches who have had ‘coaching & feedback’.

I also know I learn alot from the reflective practise. In my mind both are key to a coach’s growth as well as all the other learning we get as coaches from many sources.

Here in the UK (different from US) there is HUGE emphasis from buyers of coaching that coaches have ‘supervision’. It’s a transfer from the therapeutic world and whilst it’s of value we, as coaches, need to be clear what’s included in that ‘supervision’ & be able to clearly state how we are covering our CPD. Buyers want to be clear we are being ‘monitored’ & safe hence it being mentioned on tender documents. If you don’t have a ‘supervisor’ then you’re not likely to be considered for senior coaching assignements in major organisations hence the market is dictating what coaches do.

An interesting one to see how it progresses.

Claire
UK