On the Language of Supervision

Early next year, I'll be starting a Coaching Supervision course and opening up space for coaches to reflect on their practice with me. During my own coaching last year, I realised that I want to create a working life centred around coaching as a profession, and not just as a practice. Offering up space as a supervisor feels like both a great way to support other coaches and a natural progression in my own coaching development. I try as far as possible to only work with coaching clients where I'm unfamiliar with their working practice - I find it too tempting to steer the conversation where I think it might go based on my own similar experiences, sometimes unintentionally losing sight of the client. Supervision, however, offers a way for me to build a specialism in something (coaching practice) that I can use to support others to develop but without the fear of treading where I shouldn't go.

But here's the rub. I'm not entirely convinced that supervision feels like a comfortable frame for what I'd most like to do. The word supervision derives from two latin words: 'super', meaning above, and 'vidire', meaning to observe. Oversight. If it's not too clumsy, I think it might be an 'oversight' for coaching to have adopted the word, and much of its' practice, from therapeutic relationships, where the focus on the efficacy of the therapist / client relationship is paramount (and relies to an extent on the expertise and experience of the supervisor). Certainly there is a role for advice in coaching supervision, and I am not suggesting that supervision should be carried out by inexperienced coaches. I suppose I'm just not wholly convinced that 'expert coach' feels like the right foundation for coequal supervisor, although this is something I will be interrogating and testing throughout my studies and development. I don't think it's going to feel very comfortable, and although a surprising number of people have asked me if I can read minds when I've disclosed my occupation as a psychologist, sadly I don't have psychic powers that might enable me to understand the future position I might take on this topic - perhaps I will embrace the role of expert (although I suspect not).

Which leads me to my main challenge - I see a lot of ego in supervision: the expert coach; the advisor; the challenger. The clever and artful inquisitor. At its most dramatic, I've heard supervisors described as responsible for upholding the standards of the entire coaching profession, which feels like an impossibly heavy burden for any individual to attempt. This is not to say that all supervisors are egomaniacs, and there are certainly some brilliant and generous practitioners sharing their insights and challenges to provoke our own understanding of this emergent field. I've also been fortunate in my own supervision to have found and worked with supervisors for whom the ego is not present, or certainly not experienced by me in the room as an active force. Perhaps my current feelings are heightened because I have had a laser focus on supervision for the last 12 months, knowing it would become a dominant part of my experience and practice. I feel inspired and humbled, but also irritated and a bit snarky about some of the things I see. Perhaps I need to get my own ego in check.

I have been attempting to read about and experience a wide range of coaching supervision. I don't see a lot of coach specific supervision thinking out there because, well, it's very limited in its existence. Our main body of understanding, models and are adaptations from other fields. To paraphrase a recent conversation, what might it look like to create a coaching supervision process and experience without looking elsewhere for the foundations? To address the needs of coaches and coaching as a profession without interference from other fields?

To me, supervision is the moon orbiting the planet (coach) who in turn is orbiting the sun (coaching as a field). It's all interconnected - there is light and darkness, seen and unseen, experienced and unfamiliar. All are important, and they have a symbiotic relationship, but for me, the supervisor (and by extension supervision) is absolutely not at the centre or the biggest piece - they are peripheral, present, moderators of wobble and emotion. They create stability and rhythm - the tides that guide their coaches in their practice.

I suppose what I'm clumsily trying to articulate is my desire to work with coaches as equals, albeit with the focus firmly on their professional practice, rather than my own. I don't want the power imbalance of 'expert' and 'inexpert', 'guide' and 'learner'. I anticipate learning a lot from the coaches who choose to work with me, in spaces where it hopefully feels safe for them to share their experiences, reflections and feelings with generosity. I've written before about coaching without ego, but I suppose my question now is 'Can you create supervision without ego?' I'm certainly going to try.