Revisiting The Role Of Coaching Supervision (original) (raw)
Related papers
Literature survey of coaching supervision
It is an interesting paradox that although coaches are expected to have supervision, little is known about coaching supervision. Coaching supervision has its roots in supervision in the therapeutic disciplines. The aim of this paper is to explore some of the key themes in the literature on supervision in those disciplines, and to discuss the limited research that has been conducted into coaching supervision within this context. Particular attention is paid to social work supervision, as two major proponents of coaching supervision, Peter Hawkins and Peter Bluckert, were originally social workers. Results: The paper shows the influence of therapeutic concepts and process on coaching supervision, and identifies some of the benefits and limitations of using a therapeutic model in coaching supervision. Coaches and purchasing organisations want different things from supervision. Themes in the therapeutic literature concerning the transition from practitioner to supervisor are highlighted, suggesting that coaches making this transition need to learn to think like a supervisor, and find ways to manage the power inherent in the role. Conclusion: More research into coaching supervision is needed to find out what is happening in practice.
Supervision in Coaching Systematic Literature Review
2020
Coaching supervision as a field of knowledge is at an early stage of development, even in comparison to the discipline of coaching. To support and stimulate further progress of the field, this fully inclusive literature review aims to create a comprehensive map of the themes and directions in contemporary publications on coaching supervision. Through the synthesis of findings in 68 selected sources we identified four main themes: clarifying the concept of coaching supervision; the state of theoretical development demonstrated in the literature; the value attributed to supervision; and the nature of the current use of the supervision in the field. Based on our analysis we generate potential directions for further research, conceptualisation and theory building. Coaching supervision: An Introduction The field of coaching supervision has shifted unrecognisably even in the last five years. Supervision is now an established practice supported by most of the recognised professional bodies and served by a growing cohort of practitioners with specialised training. Organisations often demand that the coaches they contract to should be in supervision. As a result, the whole coaching industry is rapidly changing its attitude to supervision. The most noticeable and welcome change that has happened in the last decade is the significant growth of the coaching discipline (Bachkirova, 2017; Grant, 2017). This growth, by extension, is reflected in the growth of literature and research on coaching supervision. It could be said that coaching supervision is now emerging as a discipline in its own right. As we will demonstrate, however, there is a shortage in the literature of publications that provide robust conceptual foundations for the various strands of this developing field with a clear commitment to an academically rigorous, fully referenced and evidence-based approach. It is important to recognise that the existing literature on supervision in counselling and psychotherapy, although useful in some regard, is not fully applicable to the developing discipline of coaching supervision. This limitation stems from the differences between coaching and psychotherapy practices in the first place (Crowe, 2017; Bachkirova & Baker, 2018). During the last decade coaching modalities have extended from an individual to individual relationship to a relationship with groups, teams, and even 'teams of teams' or organisations. The focus on the client, typical in psychotherapy, is argued to be insufficient without consideration of the systems and subsystems around them (Gray, 2007, 2017). As coaching becomes more systemic, the nature of supervision for such coaching needs to be explored in its own right. Many difficult questions that are asked in relation to coaching (e.g. 'who is the client, when multiple stakeholders are involved?') become all the more pertinent when brought to supervision. As coaches adjust their practice according to the needs of organisations, so supervisors have to adapt their approaches, too. One potential issue with the literature on coaching supervision in this regard is that published sources are responding to the needs of the industry more slowly than the industry itself is developing. In this situation the professional bodies have taken the initiative in defining the nature of coach supervision, its purpose and what its functions should be. They often do this, however, without any evidence of a substantial conceptual underpinning that would normally be a feature of the peer-reviewed literature. The current situation, in summary, indicates that researchers and academics need to respond faster to the needs of a growing industry. One way to promote and shape research
Australian Coaches’ Views on Coaching Supervision:
In the first study to examine Australian coaches’ views on supervision, 174 experienced professional Australian coaches competed an on-line survey; 82.7% of participants were receiving some form of supervision. There was overwhelming support for supervision, but 30% reported having a negative experience with supervision with complaints about peer group supervision and unskilled supervisors being most common. Coach supervision was seen as a complex skill set that has significant value in terms of delivering an opportunity for reflective practice, the development of insights and new perspectives, and assuring the delivery of good quality coaching, particularly in dealing with difficult cases. Recommendations are made for teaching, training and practice.
Australian Psychologist 42(4) 300-309., 2007
Although recent research reveals a growing engagement amongst coaches with supervision, many coaches still pursue their professional practice without the support and guidance of a supervisor. Also, while the organisations that purchase coaching are clear that the coaches they hire should have supervision, they are unclear as to what forms that supervision should take. This article sets out to identify the kind of models of supervision that might be appropriate to coaches by exploring models and lessons from the supervision of counsellors and psychotherapist. Such models are valid because many current practising coaches are professionally trained as counsellors or psychotherapists, and a range of alternative supervisory models have been tried and evaluated over several decades. Applying elements of these models to a coaching context has allowed for the design of what is termed a systemic model of coaching supervision, with contracting, teaching and evaluation at its core. Models of the supervisory relationship are also discussed as important elements of the supervisor-coach alliance.
Coaching is a collection of persons engaged in an employment that require some degree of knowledge and learning, with a unique services with which its members practices, serve and render to the society, the acceptance of responsibility for the actions they do, the realization of its members that their service to the society is not for mere economic rewards and an organization that controls and reflects the functions of its members This paper presents the generally accepted norm that coaching as a profession uses theory and application of scientific principles that is based on the work of professionals guided by a code of ethics. Conclusively coaching profession is an art of dealing with the most complex thing on earth, human being each with his/her own hope, dreams and goals in life.
Developing Coaching Supervision Practice: an Australian case study
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 2009
This paper describes a coaching supervision framework and practice and the effects of it on participants in the monthly supervision groups. The framework was originally developed in an action research process aimed at improving and standardising supervision practice and consists of a conceptual model and a structure for the supervision conversation . In 2008, in the spirit of continuous improvement, a qualitative researcher was invited to explore the effects of this revamped supervision practice. The paper draws on three sources of data: observation of supervision groups in action, written reflections from supervisors and interviews with supervisees.
The 3 Ps of supervision and coaching: Philosophy, purpose and process
2018
In this chapter we outline an approach to developing practice in coaching and supervision aimed at achieving a practice that is congruent with the self of the practitioner. The PPP framework is inspired by an original idea of David Lane’s (Lane, 2006), but has been developed further to reflect our particular philosophy of professional development. In the introductory sections that follow, we outline what the PPP framework is, and describe the educational philosophy and logic that sits behind it. In the central section of the chapter, we expand on the three elements of the framework: philosophy, purpose and practice. We reflect on the hurdles practitioners experience in developing their practice model using the framework and report first hand experiences of those who have used it in our supervisor professional development programmes. Finally, recommendations are given for further reading and reflection.
This paper presents a discussion about supervision from two perspectives; that of the student being supervised and that of the supervisor. A central point of curiosity was to consider how do we become supervisors, more specifically, to question where a stock of supervisory knowledge may come from and how that experience might inform our actions to guide others. The paper is not a [pre]script of advice on „how to‟ supervise; rather, it is a personal and reflective account of my developmental experiences of supervision in Higher Education. The paper closes with some critical thoughts about the nature of supervision and other relevant factors such as the scope for failure in the assessment of research products, versus, permitting scope for independence in research; freedom to engage with a process. Significantly the paper suggests that the assessment of both process and product against learning outcomes may define the act of supervision in education compared to other forms of support which may be sought to develop writing, research and publication.
Regulating the Coaching Profession
Организационная психология, 2014
With the emergence of the coaching profession, there are attempts to regulate it at a national or regional level. The profession has understood how important it is to self-regulate to obtain a clear framework. The paper explores the dif�iculty that lies in the agreement on one de�inition of coaching as many of them prevail. For the ICF and other coaching authorities such as the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC), coaching is a partnership that allows the client to �ind their own solutions based on their own objectives. The author explores the experience in large multinational organizations, when coaching means advising and/or mentoring and/or individual training. The approach to coaching is: advising is to recommend a solution to the client, mentoring and training is to transmit knowledge and experience; in coaching, it is to induce a change of beliefs and encourage the client to make their own decisions and to implement them via their own action plan. Coaching is presented as a true profession, which is duly benchmarked by speci�ic competencies. The most structured approach to the profession was developed by groups of top professionals coming from different countries within the International Coach Federation who strived to determine the coaching core competencies, and to create a Code of ethics. The Code de�ines the coach's posture in relationship with the clients and provides guidelines in many professional situations where, for instance, a con�lict of interest might emerge. On their side, the 11 competencies are articulated under four main components: (1) Setting the foundation, (2) Co-creating the relationship, (3) Communicating effectively, (4) Facilitating learning and results. These competencies are the benchmark of the certi�ication. The author explores the issue of coach background: the question is, when dealing with the human matters: does a coach to be a professional psychologist to be a credible, or can they originate from other disciplines, such as economy, law, engineering, science, or art to name a few? Comparing two main schools, and their respective lobbies, the author states that coaching is limited to the 'here and now' while psy-based disciplines are healing the past, and digging more deep into emotions and feelings. As such, the two professions are perfectly complementary and should work hand in hand as the perimeter of coaching does not allow professional coaches to deal will all human matters. Against the background of global trends the author looks at the new Russian Coaching Standard to �ind that it genuinely matches the high standards of both competencies, and ethics of ICF, and adds some extra features, e.g. the competency for coach's self development, and recommendation for a coach to have supervision not less than twice a year. The Russian Standard combines strong commitment to coaching ethics and values, and broad, inclusive view on coaching embracing different coaching modes and/or styles, as long as they are compatible with the ethics of coaching, and basic coaching functions.