Should coaches be "supervised" at all

“Coaches should not be supervised” is the title of Julius Weinberg’s article from The Coaching Psychologist, Vol.19, No 1, June 2023, p. 42-45. He “concludes that coaches should neither seek, nor provide, supervision” (p.42) arguing that the term “supervision” is ill-defined and may imply interactions that coaches counter to the values of coaching. He points out that supervision is under researched and has yet to prove effective (p.44). Another very interesting objection to “supervision” of coaches is that coaches already know an effective method of helping others develop, namely coaching and that “coaching” and “supervision” are inimical. By seeking “supervision”, the coach may avoid other modalities of developing their practice which feel more suitable. This article endeavors to expound upon the considerations while providing supplementary perspectives.

The utilization of the term "supervision" may not so unfavorable

“For a large class of cases of the employment of the word ‘meaning’—though not for all—this word can be explained in this way: the meaning of a word is its use in the language” (Wittgenstein, PI 43). Words’ uses travel through “a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing” (PI 66). It is only natural that a word which is used in many contexts has a dazzling array of meanings. Selecting a term for a coach development activity that is commonly used across various domains and across various cultures to describe differing activities might not be the most prudent choice. “Coaching” also describes many different activities including soccer coaching, financial coaching etc., as anyone who has ever tried to define google search terms for their coaching website will know.

Weinberg criticizes the use of “supervision” as its “common” use connotates a hierarchical relationship between supervisor and client which would be disagreeable to coaches and counter to their values. He states that using the word “supervision” differently from the “common use” may be confusing to practitioners of coaching and states that if “[…] a professional group chooses to use language in a way that deviates significantly from normal, there should be a good reason” (p.43).

In my view, this “common” use may not be so common after all. In Germany, for example, the word “Supervision” and “Coaching” are almost used interchangeably, differentiated mainly by the domain in which they are used: “Supervision” in the caring professions, “Coaching” in the business world. One of the traditional associations in Germany, the “Deutsche Gesellschaft für Supervision” recently added “und Coaching” to their name expressing that they view them as very similar activities. The interchangeable usage of “coaching” and supervision as well as the description of “supervision” as a non-hierarchical relationship in many caring domains call into question Weinberg’s point of coaching and supervision as inimical (p.44).

In many caring domains “supervision” is used as a word for conversations with restorative, quality assurance and educational functions between an experienced professional and a practitioner. When coaching adopts “supervision” as the coaching supervision literature describes, the field also positions itself as part of the serious family of caring professionals. If coaches take supervision just as medical practitioners and psychotherapists, they signal that they take their work as seriously and that they are to be taken seriously (rightfully or wrongfully). This political dimension might be the “good reason” Weinberg is looking for.

“Accrediting agencies” promote coaching supervision partially out of self-interest

Weinberg stresses a point which is not discussed often enough when we are speaking about the development of our profession: Coaching associations, “accrediting agencies” as Weinberg calls them have financial interests. Demanding supervision from coaches for their certifications and at the same time offering accreditations for supervisors is indeed a conflict of interest. Who knows, maybe supervisors will need to be supervised next, and then these supervisors will again need to be supervised leading to an infinite demand for certifications and likewise infinite income for accrediting agencies. Accrediting agencies (I will steal that term) do need to declare their interests, and the profession would be well advised to scrutinize the respective agencies’ vested interests when certifications proliferate.

Assessing the effectiveness of coaching supervision encounters considerable difficulty

Can coaching supervision’s effectiveness be demonstrated? “Coaching supervision” is used for disparate activities with different functions and goals. “Evidence based” conjures up a medical model: You have one condition that you want to alleviate, you double-blind test one substance and see if it works better than the placebo. In coaching, psychotherapy and supervision you neither have a defined condition, nor a defined substance, no real possibility of a control group. How would you “measure” the effectiveness in such circumstances?

Coaching supervision can be a plausible and enjoyable activity for coaches’ professional growth, their wellbeing and for the quality assurance for coaching buyers

What happens in “coaching supervision”? An experienced practitioner and a coach take time to reflect on the coach’s practice using methods and values very close to coaching methods and values. The profession demonstrates that they are part of the community of serious helping professions by using this term for one of the activities for coach development, well-being and quality assurance. Other beneficial activities can be subsumed under this label and coaches do not have to cease to engage in co-coaching (peer-supervision), action learning sets (peer-supervision) etc. if they use the term “supervision” for it.

In conclusion, the question of whether coaches should be supervised is a nuanced one. While Weinberg raises valid concerns, there are counterarguments to consider. This article challenges the assertion that the word “supervision” inherently implies a hierarchical relationship especially in the caring professions and the assumption that there could be an evidence base. The political dimension of adopting the term "supervision" in coaching may offer an interesting perspective. Aligning coaching with other caring professions through the use of this terminology signals a commitment to professionalism and seriousness in the eyes of clients and peers. Coaching supervision can be a valuable and enjoyable avenue for coaches' professional growth, well-being, and quality assurance for coaching buyers. By engaging in reflective practices that align closely with coaching values, coaches can benefit from the holistic development offered by supervision.

In essence, while acknowledging Weinberg's valid concerns, this discussion suggests that coaching supervision, when approached thoughtfully and with a clear understanding of its diverse applications, can contribute meaningfully to the development and professionalism of coaches. As the coaching profession evolves, ongoing critical reflection and a nuanced approach to supervision will be crucial for navigating its role in coach development.

If you would like to discuss, meet and have fun why not come to one of our free meetups and exchanges?