Professional Coaching Literature List: Focus–Coaching Supervision

Support for and Critique of Supervision

Butwell, J. (2006) “Group supervision for coaches: is it worthwhile? A study of the process in a major professional organisation.” International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring Vol. 4, No. 2
This study sought to understand whether supervision provides real value to coaches, by observing the experiences of group supervision for internal coaches in a professional organisation. All participants appreciated the networking, learning and support gained from supervision but the work valued most by them related to case presentation. Findings suggest that more could have been achieved in this area if the group’s objectives, and possibly its supervisory model, had been set out in very clear terms at its inception, and if the group met more frequently. The author concludes that most of the benefits felt by participants could have been achieved in other ways, with the notable exception of the opportunity to discuss their cases, particularly their difficult cases and it is suggested that this aspect of the process should be the focus of the coaching profession. It is also suggested that large organisations using internal coaches should develop some standard best practice guidelines on the quality and quantity of continuing professional development and supervision for those coaches.

Passmore, J. and S. McGoldrick (2009). “Super-vision, extra-vision or blind faith? A grounded theory study of the efficacy of coaching supervision.” International Coaching Psychology Review 4(2): 145-161.
Objectives: Coaching supervision has become the dominant model of reflective practice in the UK. This study sought to explore coach and supervisor perceptions of supervision, and critically observe supervision practice. Design: The study utilised an observational design and semi-structured interviews. Methods: The study involved an observation of a coaching session, which was filmed, followed by interviews with the participants. This data was transcribed. In the second part of the study a series of semistructured interviews were undertaken with coaches and supervisors. The data was transcribed and analysed using Grounded Theory methodology until saturation was achieved. The transcribed data was combined in the development of a theoretical framework for coaching supervision. Results: The study outlines a number of perceived benefits of the coaching supervision process. These outcomes include: raised awareness, coaching confidence, perseverance, sense of belonging, increased professionalism and the development of an ‘internal supervisor’. The research also highlighted the need for a greater understanding of what coaching supervision involves for coaches. Conclusions: The paper questions the dominant mindset that supervision is the only intervention for reflective practice and argues for multiple models of continuous professional development, alongside calling for further research to identify the benefits from alternative model of CPD within coaching.