The “pro” coaching supervision faction openly references the “marketing niche,” lucrative “revenue opportunities,” “enormous sales volume” and “manifold markets,” that would be created if coaching supervision was made a requirement for the thousands of current and future ICF-accredited coaches (tuition/training fees from coaches becoming supervisors, and then coaches supervising other coaches). This industry trend appears driven less by quality assurance concerns, and more by revenue generation concerns.
The “anti” mandatory coaching supervision faction is not against supervision per se, but thinks there should be a choice as to whether or not to undergo supervision as part of your ongoing professional development (the ICF already requires 40 hours of ICF-approved training and development for ICF credential renewal every 3 years). Many credentialed coaches regularly participate in peer-to-peer consultation and have a strong network that provides ‘critical friendship’ and “coach consultation” as needed.
5. I personally maintain that coaching supervision is a solution in search of a problem, and that problem is one of revenue generation in the industry. If this is not true, someone has yet to make a compelling case by clearly explaining the problem(s) that only the modality of coaching supervision can adequately address and solve.