International Coaching Psychology Review, 4.2, September 2009

Barbara Moyes
counselling and psychotherapy which tend
to be individually based. But coaching supervision
has a much broader set of ‘masters’ –
the coach, the coaching client and the
client’s organisation: ‘One of the key outcomes
of supervision is to develop ‘super
vision’, which enables a coach to have a
broader understanding of the coach-client
system and the client-organisation system’
(Hawkins, 2006a p.10). In other words, in
order to achieve change, the coaching supervisor
has to attend to coach, client and
organisation. A systemic model is more relevant
in this context than a therapeutic one.
On the other hand, it is important to
recognise that the transference, a key therapeutic
phenomenon, can emerge in any significant
relationship. De Haan (2007), for
example, found in his study of critical
moments that experienced coaches reported
a wide variety of transference phenomenon.
This is evidence that a sharp distinction
between supervision in therapy and
coaching is difficult to make. It would seem
foolhardy to throw out models and methods
that work in therapeutic disciplines just
because they did not originate in coaching,
as long as their inclusion can be justified.
Skill sets
How the different interest groups define the
function of supervision determines the skill
set they want supervisors to have. If the aim
of coaching is to achieve change for the
client’s organisation, as purchasers of
coaching supervisions want, then coaching
supervisors need a broader knowledge base
than social work or psychotherapy supervisors.
The coaches in Hawkins’ research
(2006a) wanted their supervisors to have
business knowledge, understand organisational
dynamics, and be able to think in a systemic
way. (Intra-personal knowledge or a
psychological background came much further
down their list, which suggests that
coaches were not looking primarily for therapeutic
knowledge.)
But, with the possible exception of family
therapists, these are precisely the areas of
expertise supervisors with a therapeutic
background tend to lack. This is not just a
gap; it can be positively detrimental. Taking
a solely psychotherapeutic approach to
coaching supervision results in complex
organisational systems being reduced to
individual pathology (Hawkins, 2007, private
communication). At its worst this can result
in the coach rescuing the victim client from
the ‘bad’ organisation, not what organisations,
which are paying for coaching, want.
This is a significant example of where the
‘borrowed clothes’ from therapy are found
lacking.
As we have seen, in an attempt to address
change at the organisational level, Hawkins
and Smith (2006) added a seventh eye to
their model. The seven-eyed model is certainly
thorough, but it is complex and
demanding. Significantly, Hilpern (2007)
quotes BBC supervisors as finding that the
seven-eyed model does not leave time for the
session to be developmental or supportive.
(This reveals an interesting use of the word
‘developmental’, which seemingly implies
that skills are more important than understanding.)
The seven-eyed model assumes
that the transference and counter-transference
will typically be present in coaching
relationships, which may not be the case.
Hilpern (2007, p.38) also states, ‘Hawkins
believes supervisors should tackle all seven
areas, whereas most supervisors are strong in
only one, two or three.’ This could suggest a
diminution of the model even where it is
being used.
Achieving an ‘Aha’ moment
We saw earlier that the specific function
coaches want supervision to provide is ‘the
shift,’ or change in their way of thinking
about, or behaving towards, their client
(Hawkins, 2006a). Coaches call this ‘an Aha
moment’. Hawkins (2007) described an
‘Aha’ as a change in the way the supervisee is
talking, thinking, feeling about, and relating
to, the issue. The coach’s breathing and
metaphors might change. The shift is in the
coach’s consciousness, not just in how he or
168 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 4 No. 2 September 2009