The Case for Coaching Supervision
I was becoming more and more concerned about this particular coaching relationship. In theory I agreed with the principle that the client should be in charge of where they want coaching to take them, but for some reason I was resisting this with Sally. My supervisor’s response was not comfortable for me to hear.
My supervisor suggested that I might be looking for something from Sally that she was unlikely to provide in coaching and that we were both destined to be frustrated by our relationship. He reminded me that Sally, as a perfectionist, was unlikely to ask for help or readily show vulnerability or imperfection. She had already stated that I should not expect any deep, ‘touchy-feely’ – or transformational – coaching.
If I wanted transformational coaching while Sally merely wanted transactional coaching, then we were destined to disappoint one another.
“What scares you about giving Sally what she wants from coaching?” he asked me.
The accusation that I was scared seemed extreme to me, but I knew from experience that my supervisor chose his words very carefully so I searched myself for feelings of being scared or frightened…
Formal supervision for coaches is a much-discussed issue in the industry. Ask a coach how frequently they have supervision and you may see an uncomfortable expression pass across their face. Typical responses include:
“Well, I have informal supervision with a friend of mine who is also a coach.”
“I am never really sure how often I need supervision.”
“I don’t have that many coaching clients yet and so I don’t really need it/can’t afford it.”
In 2006 the CIPD issued a comprehensive report on coaching supervision. This report showed that the majority of coaches and those who provided coaching within organisations agreed that all coaches should have regular supervision. However, the report found that in practice less than half of coaches had any coaching supervision and less than a quarter of organisations which used internal coaches provided access to any form of supervision.
Although this research was published over eight years ago now, it feels like little has changed.
There could be a number of reasons for this lack of commitment to supervision in the profession. The coaching industry remains an unregulated industry without universal professional standards. There are also the natural pressures of time and money. Coaches who have never really experienced effective supervision may not be clear about what supervision is and may not appreciate the potential benefits of supervision.
We believe that coaching supervision is an essential element to effective coaching. As coaches we believe that our clients think and function better with a skilled, professional thinking partner, dedicating their time and their expertise to their development and wellbeing. Coaches are no different. Whatever type of coach you are: a team leader who coaches, an internal coach or a freelance coach, we believe that regular access to a trained coaching supervisor is indispensable to your development. A supervisor is someone who can help you work through your thought processes, develop your coaching capability, challenge any limiting beliefs and assumptions, and champion you when you need it.
Supervision offers disproportionate return on investment. Professional supervision will enable you to:
- Gain necessary perspective on your coaching work.
- Identify and address your own ‘hot spots’ – tendencies such as people pleasing that have the potential to undermine your effectiveness as a coach.
- Talk through more complex issues arising in your coaching.
- Maintain continuous and rigorous self-reflection.
- Sustain commitment to continuous learning and development.
- Explore new ideas and perspectives.
- Work through any ethical issues on a confidential basis.
- Consider the wider implications of the coaching work including the organisational perspective.
Geoff Watts is a leadership and performance coach and is a regular keynote speaker about coaching, collaboration and change. He is a member of the ICF, NCP and ABP.
Together they have co-authored The Coach’s Casebook: Mastering the twelve traits that trap us (published February 2015).
Kim Morgan, MCC
Kim Morgan, MCC, is managing director of Barefoot Coaching and co-author of The Coach’s Casebook: Mastering the Twelve Traits That Trap Us. For more on Impostor Syndrome, read the first chapter of The Coach’s Casebook online for free.
The views and opinions expressed in guest posts featured on this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the International Coach Federation (ICF). The publication of a guest post on the ICF Blog does not equate to an ICF endorsement or guarantee of the products or services provided by the author.
Additionally, for the purpose of full disclosure and as a disclaimer of liability, this content was possibly generated using the assistance of an AI program. Its contents, either in whole or in part, have been reviewed and revised by a human. Nevertheless, the reader/user is responsible for verifying the information presented and should not rely upon this article or post as providing any specific professional advice or counsel. Its contents are provided “as is,” and ICF makes no representations or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness and to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law specifically disclaims any and all liability for any damages or injuries resulting from use of or reliance thereupon.
Thank you for this excellent article. As a CEO for thirty years, I always had a professional coach. As a coach for the last ten years, I still have a professional coach who provides not only excellent supervision but the kind of candid, genuine feedback that helps me continue to stretch and grow.
Thank you for your comments Judy. We also find that once a leader has found a good coach, it becomes a great part of their effectiveness and growth as a leader. And the same goes for a coach and a supervisor.
Great insights. Supervision has its benefits for individual coaches and the wider profession. I am still completing my coaching accreditation and I am starting to think about having a coach myself in my corporate role as an HR Director.
Thanks for commenting Waddaa. I’m glad that you found the article useful. Good luck with your accreditation.
This whole idea of supervision is misguided. Who supervises the supervisors? Is this another monetized certification? I train all coaches and myself to “consult” with trusted well trained and experienced colleagues regarding their clients and themselves. I suggest we call this process Coaching Consultation and then require 20 hours or so as part of continuing education. That’s more valuable than hours given at a conference for poor breakout sessions, in my opinion as a coach and coach educator for 25 years
Good question. Who supervises the supervisors? In my case, I am fortunate enough to have a supervisor who is one of the leading authors and long time practitioners of coaching supervision. As a graduate of the Coaching Supervision Academy in the UK, I am required to continue working with a supervisor in order to maintain my certification with them. The insights I gain in that particular learning partnership are extraordinary.
As for another monetized certification, the lengthy study to obtain this certification was, indeed, a sizable investment. And a monetary return on that investment will take quite a long time. Nonetheless, I love the work and the kind of relationship and exploration I am able to have with the coaches who come to me for supervision. I would discourage anyone who simply wants yet another certification from pursuing this one. The kind of learning involved, the amount of reading required, the case study and the practice involved are more like a master’s degree. For me the training was very different from other certifications and has profoundly affected who I am as a person and as a coach. I was a faculty member and mentor coach with one of the first coaching schools and supervision is a very different experience.
Thanks for joining in the discussion – you have excellent points. I certainly agree, Patrick, that even informal supervision (called consultation or whatever) can be many times more valuable than some of the things that can be counted towards CPD. Practically my supervision is a mixture of formal and informal and I have no interest in monetised certifications myself.
Sam – I can also really relate to the value that you have got from learning to be a supervisor and the enjoyment and fulfilment you describe.
Thanks again for commenting. I think this is a topic that has a lot of interest and the community as a whole would benefit from discussing a lot more.
Thanks for joining in the discussion – you have excellent points. I certainly agree, Patrick, that even informal supervision (called consultation or whatever) can be many times more valuable than some of the things that can be counted towards CPD. Practically my supervision is a mixture of formal and informal and I have no interest in monetised certifications myself.
Sam – I can also really relate to the value that you have got from learning to be a supervisor and the enjoyment and fulfilment you describe.
Thanks again for commenting. I think this is a topic that has a lot of interest and the community as a whole would benefit from discussing a lot more.
What’s interesting to me is that ALL the things listed in the “Professional Supervision will enable you to…” were things I handled with my mentor coach years ago…and through colleagues that I’ve known for 20 years in the profession. Which leaves me with a couple of questions:
1.. Why the distinction between mentor coahcing being only about skills? My mentor coach years ago and for quite some time did everything for me as well as coached me on my business. I could discuss client challenges with him, work on skills, do self reflective inquiries, ALL of which by the way is what a coach should be able to do with a client. This artificial distinction between Mentor and Supervisor seems to be merely to add to the coffers of yet one more certification and one more cost imposed on coaches.
2. If the “mentor” designation wasnt’ serving because people weren’t doing well at it, then put more rigor into the process instead of splintering the job into two.
3. When did the ICF become part of the CIPD? They held a study on coaches. Okay, so, who was this “majority” that was interviewed? Were they ICF coaches? Were they new coaches? Were they only the coaches that had gone through their programme? What was the sample size?
I have doubts about the range and reach of the coaching research done on this and would like to see the report and its parameters before I’ll begin to support what appears to simply be another profit center for some people.
I’m not against coaching supervision per se, it’s the format that disturbs me. That it should be in any way mandated at ANY level. That it shoud be distinguished from effective Mentor Coaching, into some separate category , and that someone, anyone should advance this conversation in the ICF without it going out to membership at large for open forums, town hall type meetings etc. before going to some focus group who will then make recommendations based on their opinion.
Bottom line is this has not been thoroughly discussed with the membership. And it feels more like the ISO movement of some years back. Someone or some groups’good idea about what we as coaches should do to become more ‘legitimate’ according to some other discipline.
When are we going to have the courage we ask all our clients to have to explore how to succeed without having to become like someone else in order to do it? I would never go to a client and suggest that just because someone else has succeeded with a methodology, and thinks it’s a good idea, then he should take it on and become a clone of that person’s success path instead of orienting about what is truly deeply congruent for themselves.
Thanks for joining in the discussion Michael
We both wholeheartedly agree with you that this is something that should be discussed openly by the community (and the various communities within the coaching space). We happen to believe very strongly that supervision is incredibly valuable and we also see the same benefits derived in other ways (mentor coaching for example). Our intention is not to force schisms, increase complexity or add further costs for coaches but rather to kick off a conversation that we believe could add value to the coaching community, and ultimately the consumers of the service this profession offers.
Thanks again for joining in.
For some time now a number of people have been making a distinction between a mentor coach and a supervisor. As Michael points out in his comment, the distinction seems “artificial.” And for the most part the conversation limits of each role (as specified by the ICF) do not exist in any other helping discipline. Both a mentor and a supervisor in other disciplines are open to talking about anything the practitioner wants to bring up. If either a mentor or supervisor believes that the content goes beyond their competency or boundary, then they can demonstrate to the practitioner how he or she might handle such a difficulty by actually handling it.
Patrick’s idea to call it consultation makes considerable sense, particularly if the ICF drops both the mentor coach designation and the supervisor designation. Skeptics can’t help but conclude there is some hidden agenda in this latest call for yet another mandatory activity for ICF members.
Hi Rey, thanks for taking the time to comment. Just to clarify, this blog post reflects the opinions of the authors and is not an announcement of any policy change by the ICF nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of the ICF. Kim and Geoff are sharing their personal experiences with supervision and we love that their thoughts are sparking such a lively debate!
I agree with Pat, Michael and Rey on several points.
– What is wrong with the mentoring approach? I have an excellent mentor coach and although we spend most of our time on core competency issues, they always reflect around a client. We cover all the areas listed at the end of the Blog piece listed as ROI.
– The article contains too many ‘I/we believe statements. Show me the hard research or other objective evidence that shows this is essential to the professionalism of coaching.
– Concur with the comment by Michael ‘who did CIPD interview’. Although relatively new in the profession of coaching, most HR personnel I have met don’t understand what ICF Certification means (ACC, PCC, MCC) let alone do they have an opinion whether coaches should have supervision. Asking an HR person on a survey ‘should coaches have supervision’ of course they all would say yes. The real question would be the follow on ‘why’ and how would that have made the coaching more productive or what went wrong that would have been solved by supervision.
– Concur with Michael’s recommendation that this should be surveyed with the members and discussed in a forum before any approach or decision is made.
Rey and Kevin
Thanks for your input. I can understand why there may be a feeling of skepticism about anything that appears to mandate extra costs on a member. I also empathise with your view that surveys need to be critiqued and I love the idea that the members should be surveyed for their opinions.
Just as an HR person would likely vote in favour of coach supervision regardless of what it meant, it is possibly equally as likely that a coach would vote against anything that adds any extra cost to their work. I think an open debate about how to achieve the benefits of supervision/mentor coaching/coach consultation and then how to implement it would be of great benefit to the community.
Thanks again for being involved in that debate
Well this is an interesting discussion indeed. I also agree with Pat, Michael, Rey and Kevin. I feel coaching supervision is as unnecessary as much of this is covered in mentor coaching. This is duplicating efforts.
Having 10 years previously in mental health I can understand the need for supervision in working with dysfunctional patients. However in coaching it’s just not needed we work with functional clients.
As Pat and Michael stated we work with our mentees to create a solid network of colleagues and mentors to support them in their coaching development from a skill perspective and a personal development perspective. . I also have a very nice network of trusted colleagues and mentors I can turn to with any situation if needed. Many of them right here in this conversation.
I find quite a shift happening at the ICF. A few years back I served on the ICF Credentialing and Accreditation Committee and at that point ICF was very solid in mentor coaching being more than adequate and in fact we solidified the definition of mentor coaching. It was felt at that time there was no need for coaching supervision. I wonder why such a drastic change???
Geoff – you bring up a great point that the MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE SURVEYED. I whole heartedly agree.
Personally until effective research is done by an appropriate and neutral research institute I can’t say that I personally trust the research protocol for this particular project was done without bias.
Pat- I also agree with you that 10 hours of support be it mentor or consulting or supervision is just not enough. Definitely 20 hours would be more appropriate.
PS: Happy Birthday Pat!!!!
Hi Tina, thanks for contributing to this lively discussion! To be clear, this blog post reflects the opinions of the authors and is not an announcement of any policy change by the ICF nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of the ICF.
Although wary of posting anything under this title, I wholeheartedly agree with Michael, Pat, Rey, Kevin and Tina, who have made an eloquent case for mentoring. The benefits listed are what mentor coaching is and always has been to me – it’s how mentor coaching was explained to me when I joined ICF those many years ago – it’s what I experience with mentor coaches and what my mentoring clients want. So I’m very curious about a number of things:
1) The questions on the survey – Kevin’s point is very well taken.
2) Why was the survey undertaken?
3) Was the survey subsidized by people or organizations that had a vested interest in the outcome?
4) Was “supervision” defined in the survey?
5) Have the results been replicated by anyone else by anyone who has no vested interest in the outcome?
6) Is a survey really the proper most appropriate methodology to determine efficacy or do surveys tell us more about opinions?
7) Who is really benefiting from this push toward supervision? As Michael points out, it does look a lot like a profit center for select people willing to jump through another set of hoops and for training programs and another revenue stream for ICF. These financial benefits and, I might add, burdens to the larger coaching community, appear self-evident. However, is that the extent of the benefits and if not how can that be properly researched?
A final observation on the survey – I find it remarkable and fascinating how much international marketing mileage is possible with one nine-year-old survey that was done in a single country.
I wonder if the proponents of supervision have had the opportunity to experience a truly fruitful mentor coaching relationship like those I’ve had.
I like Pat’s term consultation and I’ve used the term reflection. I’m happy with consultation, mentoring or reflection. I am not happy with “supervision” – the etymology alone is cringeworthy. Is the collaborative nature of coaching, mentoring, consultation and reflection so flawed that we abandon it in favor of “inspection” and “oversight”? If so, what does that mean for coaching? While open to being convinced with good data and replicable research done with appropriate methodologies, not opinions and beliefs, I am surely not alone in finding The Emperor’s New Clothes creeping once again into consciousness.
Hi everyone, thanks for contributing to such a rich and robust discussion about ‘supervision’. Quotation marks are intentional here and perhaps we should have used them in our blog post as we wholeheartedly agree with the notion that what is important is that coaches reflect on their practice with another experienced professional and whether that is called mentor coaching, consultation, meta-coaching, co-coaching, peer coaching was not the issue. Thank you for your really interesting thoughts, however, about the implications of the word itself.
Our issue (and what prompted us to write the blog) is that we meet plenty of coaches who never seek any support on their coaching practice from another expert practitioner under any name. This may surprise the many of you who do regularly access expert professional support in your coaching work.
This blog was, of course, about our general experience of the coaching industry as a whole, which is perhaps more evidence that belonging to an organisation such as ICF can help us to maintain and improve professional standards and to develop our coaching practices.
I was a member of the leadership team of ICF’s global Credentialing and Program Accreditation Committee during its development of definitions for both Mentor Coaching and Coach Supervision. The argument for Mentor Coaching from the ICF perspective, which is required in some cases for credential renewal, was necessarily more narrow than the definition of what full mentorship can mean.
While ICF hopes for success among its credentialed coaches, the only thing it can concern itself with is the quality of the coaching itself, in terms of the very well-developed coaching competencies shaped by pioneers in the field, which have stood the test of time. There is nothing in those competencies about business building or practice building, other than the assumed secondary benefits of how Establishing the Agreement and Direct Communication might effect the wider aspects of running a successful coaching practice. The assumption might be made that the early practitioners also grappled with the scope of mentoring and also decided to focus on what made coaching itself competent in the actual relationship session, rather than the myriad skills one can argue are needed to promote success in the business of coaching. Mentor Coaching, as defined by ICF, is concerned with competency in the coaching itself, nothing more.
The other aspects of mentoring into successful practice, etc., come into play in the opportunity provided by the wider definition for Coach Supervision, along with a good number of aspects that are not mentor related but rather related to who the coach is and how they approach the work their relationship with the work, rather than the work itself. How we approach any relationship has a good deal to do with our success with it, and certainly with our satisfaction with it. An increase in our awareness about our ‘how’ and ‘who’ in relationship allows us more conscious space for satisfaction building. In coaching, we see this in our clients but we can’t always see it in terms of our own relationship with clients and our own assumptions and biases about our relationship with coaching. That is where coach supervision can provide something approaching a 360 view. For example, we talk about Establishing the Agreement in the coaching relationship – it can be equally useful to understand what agreements we have made with ourselves about certain aspects of the work.
I have been an ICF Assessor since 2005, and involved in ACTO programs , both instructing in the academic setting, and as an External Mentor Coach during training for well-regarded coaching schools since 2006, and I can tell you that my experience of Coach Supervision, when I went for training in 2009, was a different medium than either coaching, coach training or mentor coaching. It contains aspects of them and it is more. It felt as different from air (OH2) as water (H2O). That is all I can tell you. If I may, try it this year for yourselves…even if you decide it isn’t for you, you will have picked up an informative experience and a few CCEs.
Pat, could you please clarify whether or not you are an official member of the current ICF Coaching Supervision Phase 2 Task Force? Sam Magill has recently stated he is a member of the Phase 2 Task Force, and mentioned he worked closely with you in the past in advising the ICF on supervision.
I have yet to see a definitive justification for why the ICF is attempting to mimic other helping professions by introducing an artificial distinction between mentoring and supervision. And it is an artificial distinction regardless of how it’s being languaged.
I got into this profession because it was a process of discovery, even perhaps an adventurous new profession that was going to pave new pathways of interaction between people designated as coach/ client. This meant that we would also create new forms perhaps of our organization in order to ‘walk the talk’ of finding one’s own unique vision or goal.
I dont’ see this happening here and it’s a huge disconnect for me. When are we going to return to the spirit of innovation that the profession had as its trademark and come up with something that is not just another profit center for invested organization attempting to impose a previous methodology on the coaching interaction.
Hi Michael, thanks for your comment. Just to clarify, this blog post is a reflection of the authors’ experiences and opinions and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the ICF. The ICF Blog is a forum for coaches’ to share their ideas and as Coaching supervision continues to grow internationally, we felt that opening up a discussion around it on the blog would be productive. Thanks again for sharing your views!
I agree that the use of the words Supervision and Mentoring feel arbitrary and contrary to what we have been doing as ICF credentialed coaches/coach trainers as well as compared to the broader definitions out in the worlds we work in.
Mentoring in both the coaching and leadership worlds has always been about a more experienced professional guiding someone new to a field or aspect of business. Mentoring can be about helping people master particular skills. It is also about exploring context where the skills are applied. to narrow the focus to only skill-building feels awkward.
Supervision has always been about overseeing skill application and is narrowly defined through observation and feedback. I would think this word would clearly question the overlap coaching has with therapy. I agree with Patrick that Consultation would be a better word.
THE BIGGER QUESTION HERE is why were the elders of the ICF membership not consulted in this change? Seems like simple CHANGE MANAGEMENT rules, that you include the early adapters in any change initiative or you get resistance. I would have responded to a survey about the use of the words Mentoring and Supervision (and what else these could be called so they make more sense) if asked as I am sure my colleagues would have as well.
I Marcia, this blog post reflects the opinions of the authors and is not an announcement of any policy change by the ICF. Coaching supervision is an emerging trend around the world and this post was simply meant to share two coaches’ experiences with supervision and create a space for discussion. The ICF Blog is a forum for sharing a variety of ideas and knowledge and we are glad to see that so many of you are taking advantage of that in the comment section. If there are any significant policy changes around supervision or anything else in the future, those changes will be communicated to ICF Members directly. Thanks and let us know if you have any additional questions.
Thank you for responding. It looks like a lot of people have opinions that want to be heard! I am glad you are listening.
My turn. Dictionary definitions aside, I aim to be of service to bring forth the best coaches possible, representing themselves, their clients and our profession. This means they have the highest level of competency and continue to learn, the deepest sense of ethics, and the strongest commitment to how coaching can impact our world in a positive way.
Coaching is a service profession. I serve those I mentor in any way my capability enables me to, sometimes I train, sometimes I consult, sometimes I even feel like a spiritual guide.
I would not be who I am without my Mentors who served me as a WHOLE person. If ICF chooses to keep the boundary within competency development, fine. I still will seek out mentors who work with ALL of me and give me all of them. That is the relationship in which I thrive.
P.S. ICF is not “they”, it is “we”. Five times ICF has clearly stated that this blog is a forum for discussion.
[…] […]
Allan Watts said ” the only way to make sense out of change it to plunge into it, move with it and join the dance”
I have been a coach for over 17years, and took some great classes with some of you : ) Thanks Michael! I have been a mentor for 6 of those years and now have recently become a coach supervisor. The clients who have been both mentored and supervised, tell me that coach supervision a very different experience.
I encourage you to give it a try for 4 – 5 sessions then make up your mind. You might be surprised.
My understanding re. ICF is that coaching supervision is another way for coaches to gain their continuing education credits and is NOT mandated.
I find all the entries here really fascinating and full of all the good will we need in our world to look at how we can be the best we can be. Over here in the UK our relationship to supervision has been established a long time. I can’t imagine not having that special oasis to bring all of me to the conversation and come away with a refreshed sense of not just my coaching practice but on different levels of who I am and how I go out into the world as a professional person. The range and scope of the landscape of the conversation may not directly be about my coaching client but it is about me and tuning my instrument to my unique note which I bring in all my various endeavours, forms, shades and parameters. It isn’t therapy (been there done that) and it seems to be different from coach-mentoring as I understand that, gifted coach-mentors that there are.
I kind of feel the argument about which one is better than the other, right or wrong, is too dualistic and the precise defining of terms strains all the juice out of this and does not speak to where the real heart of supervision lies. We can get lost in the headiness of all this and miss out on what is really available with both quality conversations.
Those coaches who have been involved in supervision over time ( so for me that’s about 10 years) express a very strong appreciation for a level and a breath of conversation that often goes beyond their coaching cases, the coaching platform, to who they are and how they show up as people, helping them come back to what is truly congruent for them and feel resourced in different ways.
For me this is an ‘and/and’ experience not an either/or. Let’s embrace the opportunity to engage different kinds of resourcing. In the tough, often ambiguous world we work and live in my goodness this is important! In some views I read fear, scarcity and suspicion so I invite an open hearted way to explore how might we engage in the benefits of both as rich seams of learning and development that we can give ourselves in the midst of this complex business of being human. We do that in many different ways and the exquisite conversations that supervision can provide are indeed happening in lots of other places. So as Michele says have a go, immerse you and see what it’s like.
Having tried coach supervision for myself and even trained and “qualified” as a “Certified Coach Supervisor”, my key thoughts are:
a) I experienced a lot of coaching supervision that blurs the lines between coaching and therapy. often because the supervision training or supervision is lead by people who come from a therapy background and are very comfortable with the skills being used and have integrated them into their coaching.
b) I agree with what many others have said, that good mentor coaching embraces the aspects that coaching supervision purports to add to the mix. For example, Pat said “by the wider definition for Coach Supervision, along with a good number of aspects that are not mentor related but rather related to who the coach is and how they approach the work their relationship with the work, rather than the work itself.” To me this sounds like masterful coaching and definitely is what I have experienced from and always sought to bring to mentor coaching. To work on skills without working on who we are being or how we are relating would sound like very poor mentoring to me.
The danger of a survey is that there has been so much positive marketing of supervision from people who have made a major (sometimes sole) income from it, that I hear many coaches say they feel they should have it but struggle to explain why.
We are coaches and as such can bring all of our coaching skills together to create a more consistent level of good mentoring so that coaches can work on their skills, their mindset, who they are being n their coaching, how they are relating ….. etc, in one place without having to worry about definitions.
Thank you, Lisa. In many ways you’ve answered the question I just come on the blog to ask and that has been on my mind since my last post:
What exactly is it that “supervisors” do / can do that someone who is coaching masterfully does not do / cannot do?
I would also be interested to hear from others. It seems to me that it would be something that one could explain beyond a call to just try it.
And having read your post, other questions that arise for me:
Is “supervision” training an attempt at a path toward masterful coaching?
Is “supervision” training an attempt, be it however well intentioned, to replace / bypass masterful coaching?
Coaching supervision achieved a major gain on October 1, 2014 when the ICF announced approval of the use of coaching supervision as 100% applicable toward triennial credential renewal. There is a completely level playing field now within the ICF as far as choice of continuing professional development (CPD) modes. Those who wish to pursue coaching supervision can do so, and will get full CCE credit. Yet, this significant gain does not seem to be enough for pro-coaching supervision proponents. Why is that?
The ICF maintains there are no plans or intentions, “at this time,” to make coaching supervision a requirement or mandatory. However the ICF website does say credentialing requirements can change at any time, and that supervision could become a requirement in the future.
So my questions are these – Why is there an ICF Phase 2 Task Force on Coaching Supervision? What is the focus and scope of this task force? Why are ICF members not able to have this information (including knowing who the task force members are)? I truly believe there is a much broader agenda being actively pursued.
My intensive research into this topic over the past 8 months has repeatedly revealed common themes of “lucrative niche”, “revenue opportunity,” potential “enormous sales volume,” and “manifold markets” related to coaching supervision (i.e., training coach supervisors and supervising other coaches).
The few “quality assurance” references I have been able to find in various studies/papers have almost 100% been related to businesses/organizations with part-time internal coaches – who they have trained themselves and who, for the most part, only coach between 20 to 30 hours PER YEAR! Yes, I would say those coaches should probably be supervised by any employer who seeks value for money and return-on-investment.
But what I find most alarming and divisive (and very un-coachlike), is pro-coaching supervision proponents (like the Association for Coaching Supervisors – AOSC) actively lobbying employers to choose supervised coaches over non-supervised coaches, and encouraging making supervision a contracting requirement when hiring an external coach. The assumption and promotion of the notion that a supervised coach is always superior to a non-supervised coach (who may be far more trained, skilled, experienced, and also engaged in rich, ongoing CPD mastery) is totally repugnant.
LOP jest bardzo mały 83 000 , 2 grubasów co mają 90% koncentracje a obroty to żenada , pewnie tak poczekamy do końca półrocza , a potem USA pochwalą się wynikami ,albo mocno wzrośnie LOP albo jeden grubas musi zniknąć bo inaczej mooże nas czekać tragedia marazmu
That’s a nicely made answer to a challenging question
Perhaps our understanding of this topic could be expanded by looking at the training we use to become qualified coach supervisors and coach mentors. I’m focusing on training rather than competencies or issues addressed because I think the preparation for each would reveal the actual orientation and practices. Has anyone done a definitive summary and comparison?
Another inquiry – everyone I know at ICF is committed to high quality and highly ethical coaching. How can we best self-monitor that for coaches long out of coach training? How can I as an MCC make sure I am keeping my thoughts, relationships and boundaries tuned correctly to meet my ethical pledge to ICF? I don’t know about others, but I know I have blind spots that creep into my coaching. How can I be the “reflective practitioner” described by Donald Schoen so long ago?
I question whether coaching supervision and its practitioners are any answer to the question of ensuring adherence to professional ethical standards.
Here’s why – the “Association of Coaching Supervisors” (AOCS) http://www.associationofcoachingsupervisors.com/ based in the UK, describes itself as “the key provider of supervisors and expertise in supervision in Europe and beyond.” Two co-founders of the UK’s Coaching Supervision Academy (Edna Murdoch and Miriam Orriss) are featured on the website as AOCS “Honourary Members and Advisors.” Sam, I believe you are well acquainted with them as you represent the CSA in the US.
The AOCS mission statement articulates their aims to:
“Raise the profile of coaching supervisors amongst coaches and buyers of coaching;
Inform and educate coaches and buyers of coaching about coaching supervision;
Promote the value of coaching supervision to coaches and buyers of coaching services;
Encourage all coaches to include coaching supervision as integral to their practise and development;
Encourage buyers of coaching to choose supervised coaches over non-supervised coaches; and,
Encourage all organisations using coaching skills and/or adopting a learning culture, to employ coaching supervisors to ensure best practice.”
I find it reprehensible, and unethical, that the AOCS is committed to promoting the notion that ANY supervised coach is superior to a not-formally-supervised coach (who may have many more years of experience, training, qualifications, and engagement in ongoing CPD that promotes their reflective insight and practices).
Looks to me like the coaching supervisors definitely need supervising re: their ethics, attitude and respect towards their fully qualified/credentialed, if non-supervised, coaching colleagues.
I find myself quite baffled as I read this thread around coaching supervision. I experience such passion and intensity in some of the comments. I find myself wondering what deeply held values are at play here for people. What fears? Is it about coaching supervision or about change? I understand from reading this that there is a Phase 2 of the Task for on Coaching Supervision. If people do not have sufficient information about phase 2 then it stands to reason that it can generate fear and mistrust and that can have its own trajectory.
The facts are that ICF now offers coaching supervision as another way to engage in our ongoing development – a level playing field as someone so nicely put it. People can choose mentoring, supervision, workshops, etc. I agree with Karyn it is not about good or bad or even better but just another way that is different. People are intelligent and can choose what works best for them. I think Sam raises on interesting point to explore: how are mentors and supervisors trained? Not with an eye toward what is better but rather to look at how each might have a different focus. I personally would love to get rid of the word supervision but since that’s what the rest of the world calls it, I’m not sure that’s very productive in the long run.
A plea to those of you posting on this blog who have “skin in the game” re: coaching supervision.
Could everyone be upfront and disclose when you have coaching supervision business interests, which mean you are not commenting as a neutral, objective party?
Please correct me if I am out-of-date, Lynne but, as of last July, I understood you were a USA representative (along with Sam Magill) for the UK’s Coaching Supervision Academy (CSA), and involved in promoting the “first ever Diploma in Coaching Supervision in North America” (under the CSA).
Yes Lisa, and with apologies, you are correct. I am associated with CSA. I am still baffled by some of the responses. Essentially I do not understand why we as an evolving, quality-minded profession would not embrace more choice when it comes to ongoing professional development. I have certainly benefited personally from coaching supervision and as a supervisor I am also in supervision. I also know coaches who personally benefit from coach mentoring. I would also like us to understand the similarities and differences between the two as I hear much confusion. I would prefer to see us as a profession support different ways to enhance the ongoing quality of our work. The ultimate beneficiary is our clients.
Thanks for providing the clarification re: your professional association, Lynne. The ICF HAS embraced choice – coaching supervision is already 100% accepted/applicable to ICF triennial credential renewal. We have choice in Continuing Professional Development (CPD) now that honors the approach and traditions of our European and Australasian colleagues. But the problem is coaching supervision proponents are not content to stop there. In my extensive, factual research into the trend of coaching supervision, I have become concerned with the extent to which it is being purported as “the way” (as embraced and endorsed in other nations/cultures – whose coaching is rooted in psychology and psychotherapy traditions) to a more enlightened and ethically-examined practice of coaching. It has struck me that you could substitute the name of any religion for “coaching supervision” and that would better highlight the reason for the resistance it is encountering in North America. Whenever any one method is oversold as “the way,” and when proponents of that “way” do and say things to indicate they know better, or are better, than non-adherents, there are going to be problems. The Association of Coaching Supervisors (AOCS) based in the UK flatly states one of their aims is to ensure buyers of coaching choose supervised coaches over non-supervised coaches. So, with no other differentiators taken into consideration such as experience, training, skills, qualifications, effectiveness, ongoing CPD that a non-supervised coach may be engaged in…according to the AOCS they should be bypassed in favor of a supervised coach. Seems like a tactic to me – threaten the ability of the non-adherents to compete for work, and they will probably start signing up for supervision pretty darn quick. The optics, indeed the very ethics, of the AOCS need scrutiny. And this is just one of my many concerns. More to come.
On a LinkedIn group discussion on coaching supervision, Sam Magill challenged me for my evidence as to unethical practices related to the promotion of coaching supervision. As far as some of my evidence goes, that there is an unethical pro-coaching supervision lobby willing to misrepresent the facts – please see the following:
There is an ICF member, offering courses accredited as ACTP and ACSTH, who has currently posted on their website: “If coaching is used regularly in an organisation, sourcing supervision can be difficult and will need to be done frequently. For cost, time and quality effectiveness it is important that organisations gain supervision qualifications. Having a qualified coach supervisor within the organisation will make sure that the minimum requirement of supervised hours for practising coaches, is met as set out by the EMCC, ICF and XXX Ltd.” (I put in the XXX to protect the specific identity of this ICF coach, but they know who they are, and they should correct this on their site). There is NO ICF requirement for supervision hours, and this person knows it!
A Dublin university offering a coaching supervision training program (UCD, 2014) claims that: “Supervision of coaching is increasing in demand as professional bodies such as the EMCC, AC and ICF are making it a requirement for ethical practice and necessary for individual accreditation. Organizations are also insisting that coaches they take on have in place proper supervision arrangements.”
Coaching supervisors and coaching supervision training programs who actually knowingly misrepresent the facts. That’s not who I would want to be trained and/or supervised by.
Sam, can you explain how you knew about and publicly announced the change in ICF policy (re: coaching supervision qualifying 100% for ICF credential renewal CCEs) a few days BEFORE the ICF actually announced it?
Sam Magill kindly responded to me on this topic via a LinkedIn group discussion, and I am copying his response here for the ICF blog record as well:
“Hi Lisa. I really appreciate this and completely agree with the need to address misrepresentation of facts. Ethics are hugely important to me. With the clarify you’ve provided, I’m going to inquire more on my own and see if I can contribute to correcting these statements.
For full disclosure, I am on the ICF Task force on supervision. I think I got there because Pat Marum and I were the first ICF members (as far as we can tell) who went to the UK to study. We attended different programs. For a host of reasons, we both thought the forms of supervision we each learned would make a wonderful, heartful contribution to coaching.
And, I am absolutely of the position that it cannot and should not be required by ICF.
I learned about the use of supervision for ICF CCEUS from George Rogers. He had asked Pat Marum and me to do a webinar on supervision a couple of years earlier and we kept in touch regularly on the topic. I knew from a variety of conversations and individuals that ICF was considering this allowance. While at a conference in Boston where I was being asked about it, I wrote to him and asked him if I could state to a group of coaches that it was okay to use CCEU’s. He said, yes.
By the way, I wrote to Peter Welsh of AOCS talk about the way he is representing supervision. We should be able to meet soon.
Thanks for asking. Although I think we have different views, I join you in pursuit of high ethics. I’m hosting a workshop on “Ethical Maturity” here with author Michael Carroll. Should be in August.”
I then responded to Sam as follows:
“Sam, your explanation does not square with the e-mail “blast” (copied below) that you put out on the internet on September 18, 2014 – fully 12 days before the ICF’s formal announcement to the membership re: coaching supervision now qualifying 100% for ICF CCEs. Your e-mail said:
“Reminder!!!!!! Coaching Supervision Academy Teleforum
This is a reminder of the free teleconference on Coaching Supervision to be held tomorrow, September 19, at 8 AM Pacific Daylight Time.
Some reasons you might want to join us:
ICF now accepts hours of Coaching Supervision a CCEU’s for re-accreditation!
Coaching Supervision is a form of advanced professional development suitable for the most experienced coaches (and novices too) because it is congruent with the foundational ethos of coaching.
The call will be conducted by pioneers of Coaching Supervision in North America
Contact me at sam@sammagill.com to receive the dial-in numbers. Note that I’m traveling today so I will email them when I return home this evening.
Warm regards,
Sam
Samuel P. Magill Sr.”
So this was not, as you portray, a simple verbal announcement, approved by ICF HQ, made at one Boston conference event to a group of coaches in attendance. You need to understand my number one core value is veracity – meaning truth, accuracy, legitimacy, exactness and validity…and the push for coaching supervision strikes me as lacking on all counts.”
Lynne has posted that she finds herself “quite baffled as I read this thread around coaching supervision.“
Indeed, there are multiple issues and concerns surrounding “supervision”. Although far from complete, I have tried to categorize and explain briefly what I perceive as some of the important concerns.
Theoretical concerns
Michael Stratford’s original post as well my question as to whether the collaborative nature of coaching is so flawed that we abandon it when it comes to reflecting on our own practice, touch on some theoretical concerns.
The interest expressed by Sam and Lynne in “the training we use to become qualified coach supervisors and coach mentors“ seems to imply that one can train / teach people something that can (only?) be achieved through training. It is difficult for me to be more specific here because I don’t yet have an answer to the question: “What is it exactly that “supervisors” do / can do that someone coaching masterfully does not / cannot do?” from any of the proponents of supervision. The implication however points to an epistemology that is at least questionable in the context of coaching.
Another major concern is the one Lisa Wynn has posted about, which obviously goes beyond the theoretical and touches the integrity of conceptual framework of coaching. The blurring of lines between coaching and therapy is a very important issue. I was curious and thought in this context it would be worthwhile to look at the origins of supervision. The DGSv (German Society for Supervision) points out on their website “Supervision is a … discipline with a 100 years of history…” And indeed what I have been able to find about major influences on supervision does point to psychology that was primarily concerned with negative deviation, which in that historical context, naturally stands to reason. I’m guessing that there were many influences around the world that have had an impact on “supervision”. Suffice it to say from what I was able to find there has been an historical emphasis on negative deviation, which carries with it a mindset that I see reflected in the term and definition of the word “supervision.” And I would find it surprising if that emphasis were not contributing to the blurring of the lines between therapy and coaching that Lisa pointed out.
Words do carry some measure of meaning and the meaning of supervision is counter to the collaborative nature of coaching. Among the implications of using that term in conjunction with coaching is that people purchasing coaching services are frequently not well informed about coaching – the underlying ideas and principles, the intricacies of the politics surrounding coaching, etc. and using the term “supervision” could easily and understandably mislead them to make the assumption that coaches are not trustworthy without oversight, at the same time creating a potentially lucrative market for “supervisors”.
Based on the case made here by its proponents “supervision” appears to me to more closely resemble a belief system rooted in theory that is incompatible with coaching than a discipline fitting within the context of coaching.
Ethical Concerns
Lisa Mallett has pointed here to organizational and professional ethical concerns. Adding to what Lisa has posted, I too have seen what Lisa quoted from the website of a supervisor and ICF member. It presents a truly upsetting ethical issue. I wonder how many others are doing the same and I would like to know what corrective action is ICF taking. Beyond the clear ethical breach of members or member organizations saying “supervision” is required by ICF, based on the research I have been able to find about the efficacy of coaching supervision, I question the ethics of any organization publically marketing supervision as necessary or effective.
I also question the ethics of the decision making process in place at ICF. Clearly, when decision makers or those influencing the decision making process could receive potential financial benefit as a result of decisions made, there is at the very least, a potential conflict of interest. So the question arises as to whom among the decision makers and influencers would receive financial benefit from an ICF requirement for “supervision”. It stands to reason that ICF employees through an increased revenue stream could potentially financially benefit from such a decision. So are any of those people influencing the decision? How many Board members other than Damian would potentially benefit financially from a decision to make “supervision” a requirement? These are precisely the kind of questions that arose in 2009 and that prompted me to call for an ethics code for the Board and the organization in an interview published on the unfortunately now defunct Coaching Commons website. Unfortunately, that request was not honored, as far as I know.
Political Issues
Several people including Michael and Marcia have posted about political issues. And indeed the political and ethical concerns do seem intertwined. The lack of transparency on the part of ICF is disturbing. We do not know who is on the task force (except in the mean time for Sam) or what the task force is tasked with. I have difficulty understanding that when investigating an ethical complaint, ICF makes sure that those investigating do not know anyone involved, in order to assure as best they can, that there is no potential conflict of interest, yet, ICF invites a proponent, and someone whose income, at least in part, comes from supervision and supervision training to investigate / study supervision – presumably as a basis for ICF policy decisions.
I would wish for a task force populated by people who do not have potential conflicts of interest, and who critically evaluate efficacy and research and whose mandate includes the possibility of recommending independent (stakeholders not involved) research using appropriate methodology on efficacy and methods. While it is important to recognize trends, it is at least equally important to evaluate trends on a something other that marketing potential, because (and I hope we can all agree) that not all trends are worthy of pursuit.
I’m about to make a bold assumption, so hold on to your hats – I think that a human being is posting here under the name “ICF”. I wonder why that human being does not share his / her name especially in light of the fact that people who represent ICF (the Chair of the Global Board in his role as Chair last year) and recently the CEO have publically articulated positions that are incompatible. The statement made by Damian in his role as the Chair of the Global Board last year was definitive regarding a requirement for supervision in the future. So, to whomever it is posting under “ICF”, a significant policy change around supervision was communicated to ICF members and anyone else who has access to the internet by Damian last year. The recent statement made by Magda, the CEO, in an email to around 60 members was brilliantly ambiguous about the future supervision requirements. To leave the ambiguity, the definitive statement and secrets (mandate and members of the task force on supervision, who is posting under “ICF”) standing does nothing to rebuild trust that was critically undermined not that long ago in a dishearteningly similar situation. In fact, it reinforces for me and for many others the sense of distrust. It is precisely the kind of situation the signatories (over 700, for those of you who do not know about it) of the letter to ICF in September of 2009 had hoped to avoid in the future. I think it is most unfortunate that ICF did not honor the request in that letter for greater transparency or the establishment of a Coaching Knowledge Base Advisory Board.
Echoing Lisa Mallett’s plea for everyone with “skin in the game” to be upfront, I ask ICF to be up front. Specifically, I ask Damian and Magda to publically address and clearly explain (please no “spin”) the definitive statement Damian made last year and the ambiguous statement Magda made recently about the future of supervision and why those two statements are divergent. I also ask that the mandate and members of the task force be made public. I also ask that ICF let us all know what contact if any ICF’s leadership has had with UCD and/or Dr. Pelham regarding the claim on the website that ICF is making supervision a requirement. http://www.smurfitschool.ie/ourcourses/executivedevelopment/coaching/coachingsupervision/
If Teri-E Belf is correct in saying ICF is not “they” but rather “we”, what could possibly be harmful about being open and honest about what has happened, what is happening and what the ICF agenda is regarding supervision?
Little factual history to round out exactly what Alix is referring to in the above post:
On September 30, 2009, ICF coaches came together under http://www.icfcoachestakeastand.org to successfully protest against a decision made by the ICF Board of Directors to transition to a single ICF ISO credential. This Board decision was felt to be “imprudent, non-inclusive and non-collaborative with the membership.” Further, it was felt that ICF Board actions respecting credentials risked “fragmenting the organization and would drive coaches away from the ICF to seek their coach credentials from other coaching certification bodies.”
On March 22, 2010, the ICF President responded in writing to the petitioners respecting their seven requests and, at that time, committed to a variety of decisions/actions, including:
• A commitment to encourage open dialogue;
• Listening to member concerns and taking them into account…and ensuring co-creation;
• Any alterations to the system currently in place would be subject to further Credentialing & Program Accreditation Committee research using member input, with all voices to be heard and considered;
• Taking steps to provide greater transparency into the work of the Board by posting a list of the items that are to be discussed at the Board meetings and informing all ICF members on the decisions made at meetings – with a commitment to continue to do this for future Board meetings and looking for additional ways for members to be aware of governance and decision-making activities of the Board and Committees;
• Committing to submit any major proposed change to ICF members for input, and that decisions can be modified following analysis of input received; and,
• Remaining open to receive more suggestions to evaluate and strengthen the effectiveness of the relationship between the ICF leadership and members.
It was not until July 2012 that the ICF Global Board of Directors finally voted and determined to continue to offer the three levels of ICF Credentials.
It is now several years since the original ICF coaches’ protest, and the current ICF Board of Directors may not be aware of the 2010 commitments outlined above. The recent past (2014) ICF Board put in motion changes that could once again be described as imprudent, non-inclusive and non-collaborative, that risk fragmenting the organization, and that could more closely align coaching with the field of psychology, along with its licensing and regulatory requirements
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and participating in such a rich discussion. We want to keep this conversation going, so we’ve created a LinkedIn group dedicated to exchanging ideas on standards and trends in professional coaching. You can join the group here: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/ICF-Current-Conversations-8278633/about. I encourage you to use this group for any further comments on Coaching Supervision.
As interest in and use of Coaching Supervision grow around the world, ICF will remain engaged in an ongoing process of defining Coaching Supervision, articulating the differences between Coaching Supervision and Mentor Coaching, and educating coaches about the benefits of engaging in Coaching Supervision.
To that end, ICF has established a task force that will develop and publish guidelines and review and compare the standards of other coaching bodies. Currently the Task Force is engaged in two activities:
– Preparing a description of the differences between coaching supervision and other modalities
– Reviewing best practices and possible standards for coaching supervisors. The work of the task force will help ensure ICF’s role as a global thought partner and important voice in the further development of Coaching Supervision.
The work of the task force will help ensure ICF’s role as a global thought partner and important voice in the further development of Coaching Supervision. It also will allow ICF, a global organization of 26,000 members worldwide to remain relevant to its membership.
As always, please remember to keep further all discussions on ICF forums civil and professional and refrain from personal attacks.
Thank you,
Dave Wondra, PCC
2015 ICF Global Board Chair
Dave, I’m just reading your post today. In part, because my inbox is being flooded by coaches who are now marketing their “SUPERVISION COACHING” services. They went, I suppose, to a weekend course or two, and now are “EXPERTS” at supervising other coaches. I started researching the genealogy of all this “SUPERVISION” activity and found your post among others.
This is bothering me deeply — in part — because I am acutely aware of how much of this came to life through my research and phone conversations with coaches today.
While we’ve met, I don’t know you personally. I have no doubt, you are a thoughtful, genuine, and well intentioned person who cares deeply about professional coaching and the ICF.
However, your post is indicative is what is unhealthy in the behavior of this community. Rather than allow this conversation to continue, the ICF staff — I’m guessing — put together a LinkedIn group to minimize — what’s that term the ICF VP of Marketing used with me once “brand risks” of allowing this conversation to continue. People are upset about this topic — and rather than give them the space to process it — I’m guessing the staff or some well intentioned person thought it best to “take it somewhere else.”
People have a shadow self. Organizations have a shadow self. In the shadow is what lies are fears, insecurities, poor choices, and the band-aids we sometimes apply to remedy our behavior. Organizations have a shadow self as well. In it lies bullying. Isolation. Ignoring participant’s voices (the opposite of deep democracy), choices made by those in power who benefit the few and not the many, etc.
The ICF doesn’t need to hide the needed conversations that need to happen regarding its shadow self. These conversations need to be welcomed, in daylight. It feels to me any time someone in our community raises a question that ruffles a feather of the powers that be — by that I mean the global board or staff — the person speaking up gets marginalized, ignored and disinvited. How is this behavior consistent with respecting our members and their diverse views?
We don’t need to marginalize the ICF’s shadow. We need to shine a huge spotlight on it, embrace it, and learn from it to make our organization more healthy and better.
We don’t need platitudes and to be told to “get in line and settle down.” We need to embrace dissent and welcome it.
When I’ve researched the history of the profession and learned about my coaching role models — folks such as Laura Whitworth and Thomas Leonard, what I’ve always found is they were strong proponents of embracing and learning from an organization’s shadow.
Why can’t we honor — embrace — examine — and learn from — the ICF’s shadow? Yes, the ICF is doing a heckuva lot of good in the world. But we dishonor the memory of the founders of this profession — and the core values of the organization — when we ignore the shadow the ICF is creating as well.
I invite you and other who may read my thoughts to embrace the ICF’s shadow and make it a healthier, better organization that honors respect, integrity, collaboration and excellence.
When we honor these core values, we take a stand for transparency, authenticity, deep democracy, and accountability in the ICF.
Fabulous entry. I was browsing constantly this web-site and I am delighted! Very practical info specifically the earlier part.
It’s nearly not possible to come across well-educated readers on this theme, regrettably you look like you realize what exactly you’re revealing! Regards
Great insight to the coaching supervision and what a great discussion!
Agreed, fantastic article and follow up discussion. Great to see such involvement. I’m heading over the join the Linked In group. Thank you.
Howdy! I could have sworn I’ve been to this web site before but after going through many of the posts I realized it’s new to me. Regardless, I’m certainly delighted I stumbled upon it and I’ll be book-marking it and checking back regularly!
Thankyou for this wondrous post, I am glad I observed this website on yahoo.
Hello, its fastidious piece of writing concerning media print, we all understand media is a fantastic source of facts.|
[…] [3] More can be read about Kim Morgan’s thoughts on supervision in this article that she co-authored with Geoff Watts, a renowned Scrum and leadership coach. https://coachingfederation.org/blog/index.php/4075/ […]
My view is this whole supervision thing got it’s feet — when our global board took a really bad detour a few years back down this path. What’s fascinating to me is the people who were serving on the board then are now the leading folks who are teaching “Supervision Certification.” Hmm…connect the dots?
We need to nip supervision in the bud once and for all. Supervision isn’t needed in coaching. It makes this profession start feeling like a pyramid scheme.
My email inbox is now being flooded by coaches who went through a “Supervision Certification” and are proclaiming themselves SUPERVISION COACHES.
THIS IS INSANITY.
What the ICF needs a LOT more of is TRANSPARENCY, AUTHENTICITY, and ACCOUNTABILITY.
I want to start knowing very clearly in global board elections where each of the candidates stand on the issue of supervision. From my viewpoint, those who are for it, don’t deserve a seat on the global board. Let’s VOTE THEM OFF!
This is the opportunists in this profession just wanting to make more money off new/emerging coaches.
Coaching clients ARE NOT targeted populations. This ISN’T PSYCHOLOGY. We aren’t treating people.
I really liked what you said about professional supervision over your coaching will enable you to gain the necessary perspective on your coaching work. My husband is taking classes on becoming a life coach and is determining good ways to keep himself improving once he begins working in this field. Thank you for the information about how this sort of supervision can also help you talk through more complex issues arising in your coaching and maintain rigorous self-reflection.