International Coaching Psychology Review, 4.2, September 2009

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Barbara Moyes what happens during coaching supervision, or how effective it is. How can we then assume, (as many increasingly do) that coaching supervision is a good thing? Hawkins’ and Smith’s (2006) study is the most comprehensive information we have about the state of coaching supervision in the UK. It was based on web-based questionnaire responses from 525 coaches and 128 organisers of coaching services, plus more in-depth information from 31 practitioners in focus groups, and interviews with six ‘best practice’ organisations using supervision. The study was commissioned by the CIPD, one of the leading professional bodies in the field, with a vested interest in implementing supervision. The data pool was self-selecting, so the respondents were more likely to be those who had thought about supervision. As Schwnek (2007) admits, this could introduce some bias. Hawkins’ (2006a) research gives us a snap shot in time and identifies broad trends. He argues that organisations need to understand more about the nature and benefits of supervision. They need to learn how to establish effective supervision processes and assess their external coaches’ supervision arrangements. He concludes, ‘The challenge now is to develop and embed models and practices in coaching supervision so that it can provide the maximum support and benefit for coaches and coaching services’ (p.19). The purpose of supervision The main themes in the literature concern firstly, the function of supervision (Kadushin, 1976; Hawkins & Shohet, 1998; Hawkins & Smith, 2006); secondly, how far the therapeutic model is applicable to coaching supervision (Butwell, 2006; Hawkins 2006a; Lane, 2006); and thirdly, how supervisors take on their role (Borders, 1992; Page & Wosket, 2001; Holloway, 1995; Hawkins & Smith, 2006). Most of this literature relates to supervision in therapeutic disciplines rather than coaching. A key debate concerns the purpose of supervision. There are at least four different views. Hawkins’ research (2006a, p.19) revealed an interesting split of opinion between coaches and organisations. Firstly, coaches emphasised the developmental and quality assurance functions of supervision. Eighty-eight per cent of them used supervision to develop their coaching capability (interestingly, not their understanding), and 86 per cent of them wanted supervision to assure the quality of their coaching. This implies that for coaches, quality assurance was about their skills rather than client protection (although there might be an indirect link between the two). Coaches regarded supervision as an essential part of their continuing professional development, ‘the pivotal link between theory and practice.’ Butwell’s (2006) research supports this. She also found that all members in her small scale study enjoyed the skills acquisition aspect in group supervision. Secondly, what coaches most wanted from their supervisors was to facilitate change, or ‘create a shift’ when they were stuck (Hawkins 2006a). Hawkins sees the shift as transformational, resulting in the coach behaving in a different way towards the client, which in turn enables the client (and ideally the organisation) to change. Coaches’ strong emphasis on change is understandable, as coaches are being paid by organisations or individuals to help them achieve demonstrable change. However, those purchasing coaching services put more emphasis on the managerial aspect of supervision. This is the third view. They wanted supervision to protect the client, and minimise the organisational risk of unethical or unprofessional practice. For them, supervision ensured that coaching focuses on work objectives, and is within the coach’s capability. They wanted it to increase the coach’s understanding of the client and their organisational issues. Seventy per cent of organisations purchasing coaching supervision wanted it to monitor the quality of coaching, whereas only 50 per cent wanted it to improve the quality and effectiveness of the coaching (Hawkins, 2006b). What we 164 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 4 No. 2 September 2009
Literature review of coaching supervision don’t know is where supervisors are putting the emphasis, and whether they make their focus clear to supervisees. Do purchasers have a clear picture of what they are buying? Fourthly, Arney (2007) focuses on the supportive element of one-to-one supervision, describing supervision as developing coaches’ confidence, and helping rid them of some of the emotional burden they can pick up in coaching. She also sees one-to-one supervision as developmental, closely examining the coach’s practice. Supervision provides a parallel process for the coach where the supervisor/coach relationship can mirror the coach/client relationship, allowing the supervisor to give the coach helpful feedback. Arney’s interpretation of developmental, therefore, focuses more on understanding what is going on between the supervisee and client, than on skills development. There is little research to show how well supervision is practised. Hawkins’ straw poll at the 2005 European Mentoring and Coaching Council conference found that only half the delegates receiving supervision said that it constantly transformed their work with clients (Hawkins & Smith, 2006), which is what coaches say they want from supervision. However, it is worth considering how realistic an expectation it is to expect constant transformation. Indeed, de Haan and Blass (2207) found that coaches used supervision mainly for reassurance, confidencebuilding and benchmarking executive coaching practice. Butwell (2006) concluded that group supervision was valuable for discussing difficult cases and subtle boundary issues, but that coaches needed to learn how to use supervision if it is to be truly effective. None of the group supervisees she observed had done so, and all were nervous at opening up in front of each other. She concluded that: ‘What cannot be achieved in any other way than supervision is the opportunity to discuss a difficult case, to explore one’s feelings about a client, or to bounce ideas around on how to take a ‘stuck’ client forward, or to have advice from someone with more experience or a different point of view on subtle boundary issues’ (p.10). She suggests that this should be a major focus for the coaching profession, and the subject of further research. Threaded through this debate is the notion that the form of supervision (one-to-one, group or peer) impacts on its function (Hawkins, 2006; Hawkins & Smith, 2006). The function of supervision Kadushin (1976) has been an influential voice in the debate about supervision’s function. He identified three functions of social work supervision: educational, supportive, and managerial. This model worked for social work. Social work supervision was conducted within a hierarchical, managerial setting and legal framework. Supervisees were doing stressful and often in-depth work which required emotional support, and both supervisor and supervisee acknowledged that the supervisor’s role was to give guidance, based on his or her greater knowledge and experience. Table 1, Functions of Supervision, shows how much Kadushin’s thinking has influenced Hawkins (2006) and Bluckert (2006). Indeed, Hawkins’ model only slightly adapts Kadushin’s. Hawkins’ ‘developmental’ function is essentially the same as Kadushin’s ‘educational’ function, whilst his ‘resourcing’ function equates to Kadushin’s ‘supportive’ function. Kadushin’s ‘managerial’ function does not map neatly across to coaching supervision because coaching supervision tends not to take place within a managerial context. Hawkins has therefore translated the managerial function into a group of issues spanning quality of practice, ethics and the organisational agenda. In summary, the table shows how far the roots of coaching supervision, in Hawkins’ interpretation, lie in social work supervision. But is an essentially social work model of supervision right for coaching? Coaches are not typically working with the deprived or disturbed clients social workers encounter, and so the level of support coaches need is arguably qualitatively different. Coaching International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 4 No. 2 September 2009 165
Page 1 and 2: Interest Group in Coaching Psycholo
Page 3 and 4: The British Psychological Society S
Page 5 and 6: Contents 124 Editorial: To be or no
Page 7 and 8: Editorial ● Can still use the tit
Page 9 and 10: Editorial seeing you in December at
Page 11 and 12: Coaching and objective performance
Page 27 and 28: Super-vision, extra-vision or blind
Page 45: Literature review of coaching super
Page 49 and 50: Literature review of coaching super
Page 57 and 58: Coaching Hypnosis (or altered state
Page 59 and 60: Coaching Hypnosis Table 1: Age Prog
Page 61 and 62: Coaching Hypnosis ● Yep, it certa
Page 63 and 64: Coaching Hypnosis Culture and conte
Page 65 and 66: Coaching Hypnosis Sanders, S. (1997
Page 67 and 68: Co-creating an optimal coaching all
Page 77 and 78: Does coaching psychology need the c
Page 91 and 92: Keynote Paper Coaching as a reflect
Page 93 and 94: Coaching as a reflective space nica
Page 95 and 96: Coaching as a reflective space How
Page 97 and 98:
Coaching as a reflective space may
Page 99 and 100:
Coaching as a reflective space towa
Page 101 and 102:
Coaching as a reflective space Refe
Page 103 and 104:
SGCP & IGCP News Update Interest Gr
Page 105 and 106:
SGCP & IGCP News Update experience
Page 107 and 108:
Volume 4, No. 2, September 2009 124
Page 109 and 110:
The objectives of this workshop are
Page 111 and 112:
4. Online submission process (1) Al
show all

International Coaching Psychology Review, 4.2, September 2009

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?