Supervision
And so, it happened.
I’m now an Ashridge Accredited Supervisor for coaches and OD consultants. It is career milestone, not least in terms of my ongoing development as a coach, and certainly it’s the deepest professional development I have embarked upon for well over a decade.
As I reach the end of the ADOS phase of my development journey, it strikes me that an outline of my profile and philosophy as a supervisor includes two key facets:
(1) Where I am I trying to get to?
(2) Where am I now, in the context of (1)
The following is an extract from my accreditation submission. I have chosen it as coaches are the main audience for this blog.
Where am I trying to get to?
My headline is that I am setting out to be a relational supervisor just as I believe myself to be a relational coach. The skills from the latter inform my approach, and hopefully help me have a positive impact, as a supervisor.
In summary this means that, as a supervisor, I am aiming to enter into a session or a relationship with this in mind:
“…the supervisor is in effect a living paradox because he combines so many opposing elements in his role: he is both a guard and a developer, both a giver of feedback and a facilitator of self-evaluation, both wounding in his keen observations and nurse of professional wounds, both an expert and a novice (because every case is a new one, both facilitative and authoritative, both a non-directive counsellor and a directive adviser.” (Haan, E. de. (2012). p9)
Where this starts to take us is towards the relational model which is based upon assumptions which Erik outlines in the same chapter and which I paraphrase:
People are motivated to enter into relationships with others and aspire to the improvement of relationships as a result of the supervision
As a supervisor I aim to understand the supervisee’s reality through the lens of the relationships at play in the supervision cases
My desired outcome is a powerful relationship which works (for the supervisee and for myself)
I am alert to the relationship itself as evidence of the supervisee’s other relationships (treating everything that happens for me and for the supervisee in the supervision room as data)
I do not limit myself to specific interventions – anything is possible
In some ways, where I would like to reach is a position where I arrive as a supervisor with little planning and a ‘clean’ mind.
Where am I now?
As one develops professionally in any discipline, it seems to me that there is an evolution akin to learning to drive. As a driver of 40 years with a clean licence I don’t really have to think about the mechanics of driving a car whereas a new driver thinks about every individual step.
A few years into my supervision work, I am not a novice nor am I a ‘master’. On the other hand, I bring into the room many years’ experience of coaching and of being supervised, and of organisational consulting. I know what I can do and what my offer is.
A key element of both my coaching practice and my supervision work is my ability to pick up on things and really to notice has led to powerful breakthroughs for people with whom I am working.
I also have my “favourite” or preferred models and ideas which I ponder when preparing for a session and in the supervision room. My toolkit, perhaps:
a. If “the supervisor uses an empathic capacity as well as theoretical knowledge to understand the clinical work and build the supervisory relationship…” (Dean, 1984) then I wish to reach that state of empathy equally for each supervisee.
b. I am still getting used to being more directive as a supervisor than I often am as a coach (where I use directiveness in order to move to action) and so I find the opportunity (the requirement?) to offer suggestions and advice novel and liberating. My supervisees seem to value this yet I wish to check my intent each time in order to ensure it is correct.
c. I am working to nurture the potential in my supervisees, not to tell them what to do.
If I evaluate my work to date, however, I do see that I am guiding them towards transformational learning and that there are normative, formative and restorative[1] elements, in different proportions. I am comfortable with each of the three modes, finding myself easily moving to a restorative place when someone needs support or care, using my coaching and consulting skills in service of formative outcomes and using the skills developed over many years in HR to structure normative interventions which are impactful and receivable.
d. I try to ensure I make good use of the seven modes of supervision as well as supervising in a relational way. I enjoy the idea of “being indifferent to the outcome” however am yet fully to reach that state. I notice a level of anxiety within myself, at times, to move to results and outcomes.
e. I am alert to shame and vulnerability and minded to assume that they are always present. This leads me to a conscious choice: to be more compassionate, particularly when taking the supervision to a normative place. I will also check that the supervisee and I are both being as appreciative as possible, recognising positives and opportunities, in order to strengthen their sense of self-worth. I will try to recognise successes, if appropriate, where supervisees are feeling guilt or shame whilst also being prepared to tackle a lapse in standards or ethics if also present.
f. I know that each time I feel as if I am taking a risk with my supervisees, it pays off for them and for me.
g. Naturally, key reference points are the Ashridge Supervision Accreditation Criteria (probably superfluous actually to reference them here) which provides an essential framework for on-going development.
h. Finally, I will continue to enjoy Robin Shohet’s assertion that “everything is data”. This is also liberating for the supervisor and, I hope, for the supervisee. I have gained so much from reading Robin’s writing (Shohet, R. and Shohet, J. (2020)) with concepts/ideas which inform my philosophy including encouraging paradoxical thinking, everything can be reframed, reminding me to think about and explore intent and impact, recognising that we can all feel exposed in supervision.
In my coaching practice I believe, and this is supported by my supervisor with whom I have worked for many years, that I am at the point where any reliance on tools is firmly in the past. They may feature in my work subconsciously however my focus is on what is going on in the room and on working with that data in the moment. I aspire to reach the same point with my supervision, in time.
I am looking forward to working with a select number of experienced and more recently-qualified coaches.
Let me know if you’d like a chat.
Warm regards
Tony Jackson
Notes & References
[1] This is a simple and rather helpful supervision framework devised by Brigid Proctor where formative work focuses on the supervisee’s professional development, restorative interventions focus on their psychological & social needs and normative supervision focuses on the standards & quality of coaching they are offering.
Dean, R. G. (1984). The role of empathy in supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 12(2), 129–139.
Haan, E. de. (2012). Supervision in action: a relational approach to coaching and consulting supervision. McGraw-Hill Education.
Shohet, R. and Shohet, J. (2020). In love with supervision; Creating transformative conversations. Monmouth: PCCS Books.