What is the future of coaching supervision for you?

This article is a reprint of a Coaching Research in Practice (July, 2019). All ReciproCoaches receive complimentary limited-time access to each new issue (10 per year). For unlimited access to more than 10 years of Coaching Research in Practice archives, purchase a membership or a subscription.

Little more than ten years ago, coaching supervision was only beginning and conversations still revolved around defining what it was. Today however, a large majority of coaches and organisations consider coaching supervision essential and conversations have shifted from what it is, and why or whether to have it, to the question of how often to have it.

This issue of Coaching Research in Practice reviews a paper that reports on the development of coaching supervision throughout the world. It highlights the growth to date in the recognition of supervision and alludes to what this means for coaches in the future.

COACHING RESEARCH

In their 2017 paper, “The rise of coaching supervision 2006-2014,” Hawkins and Turner compare and contrast the findings of two coaching supervision studies conducted in 2006 (with 528 online questionnaire responses from coaches and coach supervisors and 125 from organisations employing coaches externally or internally) and in 2014 (with 569 responses from coaches, 52 from organisations and 30 from individual clients). The results show the changes in the coaching supervision landscape, thereby predicting the likely future of coaching supervision and its role in coaches’ professional development.

In the eight years between the two research projects, coaches’ engagement in supervision increased from 44% to 83.18% globally. Notably, this percentage was higher in the UK with 92.31% of coaches engaging in regular supervision, while North America was shown to be “significantly lagging behind other regions” (p. 106). Interestingly, Hawkins and Turner point out that the number of coaches engaging in regular coaching supervision in North America “is roughly where the UK was in 2006” (p. 106). This finding implies that in another eight years, North America is likely to see more than 90% of coaches engaging in regular supervision.

Here is the breakdown of the frequency with which coaches engaged in coaching supervision in 2014 (p. 108):

17% have never had supervision
19% have supervision monthly or more often
24% have supervision about every other month
27% have supervision about four times a year
13% have supervision twice a year

In 2006, the number of coaches engaged in coaching supervision was a minority. However, the results above show that in 2014 the number of coaches not engaged in supervision were the minority. Here were the reasons for not having supervision in 2014, where the first number indicates the number of people who cited the reason, followed by the percentage of respondents represented (p. 107):

I do my own reflective practice (47/25.54%)
I discuss issues with my coach (42/22.83%)
I belong to peer networks where I can get support when I need it (60/32.61%)
It is not required by the organisation I work with (30/16.30%)
Supervision is expensive (9/4.89%)
I cannot find a suitable supervisor (8/4.35%)
I do not feel I need it (11/5.98%)

During this eight-year period, coaches’ reasons for engaging in coaching supervision also shifted and “had become more intrinsic and linked to a commitment to good practice and continuing personal and professional development” (p. 105). Here is a breakdown of coaches’ reasons for having supervision (p. 107):

It is part of my personal commitment to good practice (369/92.6%)
It contributes to my CPD (206/51.6%)
It is a requirement of a professional body of which I am a member (135/33.9%)
It is a requirement for accreditation by a professional body (105/26.5%)
It is a requirement of organisations using me as an external coach (77/19.2%)
It is a requirement of organisation using me as an internal coach (59/14.7%)

Hawkins and Turner’s research also investigated how much people pay for coaching supervision. They found that “the largest group (one third of respondents) used a peer arrangement so there was no cost” (p. 108), while the next largest group paid between 120-240 Euros or 165-328 US Dollars (though not specified, we will assume this is a per session rate). They point out that “most coaches pay less for their supervision than they charge their own clients” (p. 108) and query whether a coach “paying less for their supervision, than what they charge for their coaching . . . might not value the supervision as much as if there was at least a payment equivalence” (pp. 108-110).

Finally, Hawkins and Turner’s research highlighted that the majority of coaches had taken multistakeholder contracting to supervision and most organisations hiring coaches expect them to have coaching supervision. In contrast, 48.28% of individual clients “did not know whether their coaches had supervision or not” (p. 110).

IN PRACTICE

Hawkins and Turner point out that “many coaches think they only need supervision when they are aware of a need for it and that they can get adequate support from other coaches and peers” (p. 107). However, they also note that there are “different benefits, costs and dangers, between paid supervision (individual and group), formal peer supervision and informal supervision with peers” (p. 107). Indeed, over the years, ReciproCoach too has witnessed these benefits, costs and dangers and has therefore moved from a formal peer supervision model to a paid group supervision model. We also provide recommendations for individual supervision with particular qualified/experienced supervisors. We think it is important to note that even though we are obviously big advocates of peer learning models, we no longer recommend peer supervision, as the process of supervision and the nature of the cases brought to the table are too complex for a novice to explore effectively.

There are also two specific recommendations we can draw from this research. If you are engaging in peer supervision, as this study suggests many coaches are, make a commitment to try a formal supervision session or series, whether group or individual, with a suitably qualified/experienced supervisor. After doing this, consider whether the peer process you are engaging in is actually supervision. Furthermore, if you coach in organisations and are not already regularly in coaching supervision, get yourself some coaching supervision. The results of this study, as well as observations from ReciproCoach supervision sessions, indicate that multistakeholder coaching comes up very frequently in supervision.

Finally, ReciproCoach would also challenge Hawkins and Turner’s query of whether coaching supervision should cost more than what coaches charge for sessions themselves. While the former is professional development, the latter is often life changing. Therefore, we encourage you to measure the value of coaching supervision not based on how much you pay, but on how much you gain from the process professionally and the time spent/professional value gained ratio. Most coaches would agree that with an effective supervisor the value gained from a supervision session is exponential in comparison to the hour or so they spend in the supervision session. If you haven’t experienced this recently (or at all), try it now. Whether you join a ReciproCoach supervision group session or series, reach out to one of our individual supervisors or do your own research and hire one of the fast-growing number of coach supervisors available, be part of the majority who make this personal commitment to good practice.

Reference:

Hawkins, P., & Turner, E. (2017). The rise of coaching supervision 2006–2014, Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 10(2), 102-114.
DOI: 10.1080/17521882.2016.1266002

Translating coaching research into coaching practice,

Kerryn Griffiths, PhD (The Process of Learning in Coaching)
ReciproCoach Founder and Global Coordinator

Already a member?