International Coaching Psychology Review, 4.2, September 2009

Literature review of coaching supervision
Barbara Moyes
Purpose and Methods: 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.
Keywords: coaching, coaching supervision, therapeutic model, power.
COACHING SUPERVISION is an underresearched
– and sometimes contentious
– subject. Coaches are
expected to have supervision, but despite
considerable research into supervision in the
therapeutic disciplines of social work, psychology,
counselling and psychotherapy,
(e.g. Kaduishin, 1992; Holloway, 1995; Page
& Wosekt, 1994; Hawkins and Shohet, 2006),
there is virtually no research into what happens
in practice during coaching supervision,
and therefore, what coaches are getting
for their money (Schwenk, 2007).
Coaching is at an important juncture. If it
is to become a profession, implementing
supervision is a critical step it must take
(Hawkins, 2006c). As Schwenk (2007, p.2)
puts it, ‘Supervision is a symptom of a profession
that is emerging and is part of
assuring good practice. It is a natural evolution
of where we are in the coaching
business.’
But the current situation is confused.
The proliferation of models and standards in
coaching means there is a lack of coherence
in the profession which makes it harder to
develop a common approach to supervision
(Arney, 2006). As yet there is no specific theoretical
base or model for effective coaching
supervision (Bluckert, 2004; Butwell, 2006;
Lane, 2006). Instead, coaching supervision
borrows from elsewhere, drawing particularly
on its roots in the therapeutic professions.
Leading writers in the field, Hawkins
and Bluckert, have contributed to this. Both
are former social workers whose approach
draws on the earlier work of writers on social
work supervision such as Kadushin (1968,
1976, 1992).
Definitions
There is not even an agreed definition of
coaching supervision. Hawkins and Smith
(2006) say that supervision provides ‘a protected
and disciplined space in which the
coach can reflect on particular client situations
and relationships, the reactivity and
patterns they invoke for them and by transforming
these live in supervision, can profoundly
benefit the client’ (2006, p.142).
Their belief is that coaching supervision
is systemic and transformational. The client
will benefit because during supervision, the
supervisee will have found a different, more
enabling, way to ‘be’ with the client. This is a
sophisticated argument which has its roots in
therapeutic supervision. However, Bluckert
does not emphasise this:
162 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 4 No. 2 September 2009
© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764