Vulnerability

Musings on vulnerability…

I have been thinking a great deal about shame and vulnerability this year, in the context of a supervision qualification I am pursuing. An early offering in this regard was this blog  which revolved around an initial exploration of shame. 

It led to an early, for me crucial, conclusion that a strongly relational approach to coaching or supervision has to be a contender for the most astute approach to tackling shame in the coachee or supervisee.

Across 2021 I have explored the topic from a more academic perspective and the resulting thesis is significantly more formal than any of my blogs. This blog is in part an extract from it. It’s been a bit of a journey,  not least as I have ensured that it includes a strong dose of personal vulnerability which emanates from my identity, including the idea of revealing my neurodiversity in a business context. 

The longer I navigated the topic, the more I realised that shame and vulnerability are often, if not always, at play in the supervision room and quite possibly also in the coaching room. I have certainly reached the point that I want to act as if it is present and to ensure that my initial coaching or supervisory style is supportive and restorative as default, at least until shown to be redundant or until a stronger normative or formative requirement emerges.[1] My practice will always include appropriate challenge, firm if needed, but that may not be the right starting point in most cases.

Picture the scene: an experienced professional[2] has come to me for coaching supervision:

Upon exploration, using empathetic questioning, I uncover that underneath their superficial confidence they are wondering if they are “supervisable”. They confess to feeling as if they are about to reveal just “how terrible they are at their job” and to be on the receiving end of judgment. 

In other words, my words, shame is at play. They are feeling vulnerable.

My coaching practice is built upon the relationship and on what is happening in the room, less so upon coaching tools. My supervision practice is a mix of all three (relationship, room and tools) and in this situation, right at the outset, I recognise that the antidote to this shame, as mentioned in my earlier blog, has to be a relational approach to supervision. I spot the need to be sensitive to shame, regardless of whether I think the person “should” be feeling that way.

A slight tangent:

“Should”: my least favourite word, particularly but not only in the supervision room. It brings in all manner of judgment, assumption and can provoke an emotional response:

“Certain words increase emotional distress ... one of the biggest culprits is … “should.” When individuals experience “should” in their thoughts, it produces an emotional state associated with a demand to achieve extreme standards or ideals. The emotional consequence is likely to be guilt, frustration or depression.” (Ballantyne, 2017)[3]

I try never to use the word or to reserve its use for very rare situations.

Back to the case:  

They repeat that they are concerned that they might reveal “how rubbish they are at coaching” and that they might feel ashamed of their work compared to my “deep expertise” (sic).  Their interference is a fear of being judged, and of feeling shame as a result. 

Isn’t that interesting? The fear of being judged. The sense of risk around opening one’s work up to scrutiny. Interference. 

The more I supervise, the more I coach, the more I see this vulnerability. I have now thought long and hard about tactics for managing it and for helping coachees & supervisees move beyond it. I applied some of them in this case and will return to the ideas in a future blog.

Meanwhile let’s remember that even those who present as confident are probably anxious about what they are about to reveal and are feeling elements of shame and vulnerability. 

“Never shame to hear what you have nobly done”

William Shakespeare

Coriolanus (Act 2; Scene 2) 

Notes:

[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 being offered.   

[2] Completely anonymised – elements being drawn from more than one supervision assignment  

[3] Ballantyne, B. S. (2017, October 31). A protocol for ‘should’ thoughts . Retrieved from Counseling Today: https://ct.counseling.org/2017/10/a-protocol-for-should-thoughts/