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

I agree.

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, 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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

Article on supervision on page 12.

best wishes
Claire

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