_ll=.-

CHAIN REACTIOITSarah Gilbert, Michelle Lucas

and Eve Tirner share theirpeer supervision research,

reflect on their experiences,

and raise questions forfuture debate

coAcHrNq SuPERUrSrOl{

magine olrr confusion when three qualified supervisors in a peer

supervision chain received conflicting views about the

appropriateness ofthis fbrm ofreflective practice for coach and

supervisor accreditation purposes from three cliflerent coachingprofessional bodies. In the current market, with many n-rore coaches

than supervisors and few supervisors who have experience of supervising

supervisors, what'shouid' best practice look like?

In writing this article we wanted to share our own experiences and

Iearning from being part of a chain, and bring attention to what we see as

an ir)rportant folm oI supervision.The authols of this article are three members of a group of 1 1 trained

supervisors who give and receive peer supervision to each other 9-12 times

a year in a'chain'that has been operating since 2010.

By'chain'we mean that A supervises B, who supervises C, who stqtervises

A, and so on. The pairings change thr"ee times a year. In 2013, we carliedout a confidential survey to understand how we were using the chain

within our wider reflective practice, to identify what it was about the

chain that seemecl to be working well and how we coulcl improve it,and to conpare our experiences of it being acceptable as a form ofsupervision externaliy.

We presented our findings at the 3rd intentational Supenision Conference

in 2013 and then updated and expanclecl our survey, presenting the results

at the 2014 conference.

Description (uith thanks to BPS SqCP and

Bach kirova a n d Jackso n)

Two coaches usually observed by a thirdTwo supervisors usualty observed by a thirdTwo qualifled supervisors, organised on an as-needed

basis without a formal contract

Two qualified supervisors with a formal contract. Only

one acts as the supervisor ofthe other on a regutar basis

for the contract period

A number of qualif,ed supervisors who meet regularly as

a group. There is a formal contract and only one ofthepeers acts as the supervisor ofthe others for the

contract period

As in one-to-one: sometimes the chain rearranges the

order to benef,t from working with different people

o Reflective practice label

a Co-coaching

o Co-supervision

o Peer supervision

conversations

a One-to-one supervision

with a peer

o qroup peer supervision

a Chain peer supervision

January/February I Vol ro lssue r @ zoe5 | www.coaching-at-work.com Coaching at Work 45

Questions for professional coaching bodies in developing criteria to identifywhen peer supervision would be appropriate for accreditation purposes

o What characteristics in any supervision relationship would make it invalid?

o What characteristics are required ofthe 'supervisor'?

a What needs to be in evidence in the supervision contract and process?

o When might the experience/characteristics ofthe supervisee supersede the experience/

characteristics of the supervisor?

o ls continuity in a supervision relationship important? And if so,for what purpose?

o What differences, ifany, are there when we are considering coach or coaching

supervisor accreditation?

What is peer supenuision?We have come across lnarrydescriptions, all of which couldpotentially be described as peerstrpervision (s ee box, page 45).

For us, peer supervision means

supervision with someone at a

similar level of both coach andcoach supervision training. AIso,

our initial chain began as theoriginal eight members finishedthcil posrgraduate supervisioutraining- so there was a sense

of equivalence in oulclevelopmental j ourneys.

The 2013 survey asked chainmembels to articulate what was

different about working with a

peel(who happened also to be a

trained supervisor') in a chain overand above wolking with a 'regular'trainecl supewisor.

Three main themes emergecl.

First, the equivalence oItlainingseemed to offer a sense of 'qualiqrcontrol' for the supervisionreceived, and supervisors could ask

for feeclback on their work from an

appropriately informedperspective. Second, membersidentified'wolking in the spilit ofreciplocity' with a ger-ruine

motivatiorr to shale Iealning.Third, there was a deep sense of

collaboration that came from thereiative absence of role powerbelweer r superwisee and superuisor.

46 Coaching at Work

All ofthis is expressed byGillian Curtis, a chain member:"The value of the clraiu to rne is

that I enjoy regular and frequentsupervision, which is always of thehighest professional stanclard. Itoffers new light and a freshperspective on arry situation orissrre lhal Ibring, encouraging me

in ny work to feel part of a largercommunity of supervisors ancl

mutually supported by them."

lrlhat could be'too near'?There is lelatively little writtenarouncl peer supervision, althoug}rit is discussed by StJohn Brooks;

Hawkins and Shohet; Carroll andGilbert; Hawkins anci Smith, andGrant, anong others. BachkirovaandJackson examine three fbrms:onc-to-onc, pccr strpcrvision in a

group and chain.For this latter type they suggest:

"There is a rnuch better chance

for success if all members of thechain are experienced andknowlcdgeable as supervisors as

well as coaches" (p232).Theybelieve n'rembers need to

pay particular attention tocon t ract illg. Tlrese suggesl ions

reflect the experience in our chain.When we presented in 201 3,

some of the audience observed thatsuch an arrangement felt "cosy"

and anticipated tire potential for

collusion. Gra:nt (201 2, p26) wrrtes:"Al though peel gloup supcnvisiou

can be seen as a cost-effective way

to deliver or access s1rpsrvi5l9n.

those who orgrnise such activit ics

have a du$r of care to ensllre

supervision quality."Bachkirova and Jackson believe:

"There is a risk of collusion and ...

valuable insights into issues ofquality might be rnissecl" (p233).

But they also believe it is worthpersevering because, if suffi cientattention is paid to dynamics and

contracting, it can add moreperspectives and diversity and

hones supervisory skills.Our experience wasn't one of

collusion. We clesigned the chain so

we never sllpervised the person

who was supervising us

sin-ruitaneously. There alesignifi cant differences arnongnernbers who wolk in differentfields, represent a diverse range ofprofessional bodies and use varied

coaching approaches. In'rportantly,

one of the mainbenefits cited inour sLlrvey was the sheer breadth ofthe approaches we experience. As

we do not choose who we workwith, we find ourselves stretched ina way we n'right not actively seek.

Far from being cosy, this can at

times be quite uncomfoltable !

In our view, it is theresponsibility of both parties to

January/February I Vol 10 lssue 1 @ 2015 | www.coaching-at-work.com

.ACLynne Cooper, vice chair, AC UK"The AC believes that making supervision accessible to alt

coaches is a key contributor to raising coaching standards, and

so offers monthly group supervision calts to members. One

beneflt of peer supervision is that it lends itself to service

exchange without payment, which encourages take-up. The

AC is continuing to review supervision requirements as newpractice, such as peer chains, emerges. For coach or coaching

supervisor accreditation, peer supervision is now acceptable as

long as the peer supervisor meets key criteria, includingqualiflcations, experience, the nature ofthe relationship and

that it has some consistency and longevity. Peer supervision

will generatty be considered on a case-by-case basis."

. AOCS

Peter Welch and Erik de Haanwww.associationofcoach ingsupervisors.comNon-accrediting'At AOCS we recognise that, in practical and economic terms, a

btend ofsupport for internal coaches is often provided - peer,

group, action learning set, mentoring and external - however,

we do not recognise 'co-coaching'peers as a substitute foraccess to a quatifled and experienced coaching supervisor."

Peter Welch"l think it is good to keep a rigorous procedure in place whichin my view is very 'tighi', not tough. I would not acknowtedgepeer supervision, only properly contracted and paid-for

supervision." Erik de Haan, AOCS chairman

. APECS

Patti Stevens (director) and Jeremy Ridge (chairman)'Applicants need to accept and abide by the APECS Ethical

Quidetines; and the need to continue to engage in appropriatesupervision and CPD is part ofthat. Each case is looked atindividually and peer supervision conducted with rigour coutd

be deemed appropriate. This would be explored with theapplicant by the executive coach accreditation team.The quality of the one-to-one is still what ought to always

add value."

. BACP

Jo Birch, past chair BACP coaching"BACP doesn't recommend peer supervision for trainees ornewly qualifled practitioners. lt does, however, accept suitablepeer supervision for both accreditation applications and

renewals, accepting one-to-one and group formats. The

accreditation team would consider whether what was being

offered was sultabte on an individual basis."

. BPSSGCP

Professor Sarah €orrie, chair; also supervision guidelines:bit.lyl1 CGLMdf (section 4)"We recognise there are a number of legitimate forms ofsupervision and the focus and format may change as a

function of a coach's career stage and growing experience.

There are BPS guidelines with questions about which peer

supervision format is appropriate for whom. Co-supervision,

involving peer dyads alternating the role of supervisor and

supervisee, can be effective where the peers are already

experienced coaching psychologists and both are competentas coaching supervisors. ....lt is recommended that peer andgroup formats without an assigned experienced supervisor are

reserved exctusively for those who possess the full range ofpsychotogicaI knowledge and practical skills relevant to their

fleld and have the competency to act as coaching supervisors."

O EMCC

Provided by David Sleightholm,international vice president, Standards"The key is the skitls and approach of both supervisor and

supervisee, and the discipline that each brings to the process.

Personally, I am more anxious about mentors and coachespractising without supervision, and some organisations settingup schemes without providing supervision. A reluctance ofsome coaches and mentors to engage in supervision may be

flnancial - and peer supervision with a suitable colleague

using a sound process may therefore help overcome this.However, the EMCC's guidance is clear: there must be no dual

roles (ie, supervisor is not also line manager, business partner)."

o lcFTracy Sinclai4 UK ICF president,20l4"The ICF's position is evolving. ln 2013, ICF adopted a

definition of coaching supervision, developed suggestedquallfications for those serving as supervisors and offeredguidetines for selecting a coaching supervisor. At the luty zor4global board meeting, a taskforce was approved to publish

more speciflc guidelines and make recommendations forfuture policies in the area ofcoaching supervision and

continue in their workto ensure ICF's role as a global thoughtleader and standards-setting organisation. Supervision now

counts towards continuing coach education requirements forcredential renewals."

lanuary/February I Vol ro lssue e O zor5 | www.coaching-at-work.com Coaching at Work 4?

work rigorollsly; even a

tr:aditional one-to-one supervisionrelationship has the potential tobe collusive if those involved let it.lndeed chair-r memberGilly Rutherforcl believes"because everyone...is qualifl ed

and experienced it carries a highlevel of credibility and integrity".

As we considered this challenge,we also realised there is anotherimportant difference to a

plolongecl one-l o-one supervisionrelationship. The chain gave us

the opportunity to 'triangulate'the feedback we received as a

supervisee or as a supervisor.Lesley Matile, one of the chain

mernbers, believes it works wellfor her': "The chain, with its rangeof qualified and experiencedcoaclres, helps me scnrlinise my

practice from many angles andpelspectives and asks me a rangeof helpftrl and clevelopmentalquestions that I was unlikely to getfron one supelvisor a1one."

Indeecl, when sl-re went forMaster Practitioner Coach

accreditation, the issue of"continuity(ie, of having one

supervisol over an extendecl

period) did not arise. Instead, myrcsponsibilily as a supervisee loensure I usecl the supervision wellwas embraced".

Lesley, for example, writes logsofeach session.

And Gillv continues: "So

tusing the chain as part ol my

supervision... has always beenreadily accepted in renewing my

accleditation...the mostinportant consicleration is how Iusecl my supervision in service ofn'ry practice."

Neveltheless, Ihe reacl ion in2013 did prompt changes; we

extended the chain beyoncl itsOxforcl Brookes beginnings toinclude some alumni fromBath Consultancy Group. We also

4t Coaching at Work

Figure a: How the chain members viewed the relative effectiveness of different types ofreflective practice

arranged external supervision toreview our grollp processes.

Putting the chain in contertOur 201 4 survey exploled how we

usecl the chain in lelation to otherforms of reflective practice. For

some, the chain was theil only formoI reflectivc plactice involvingotherpeople, while lor many it was

part of a wider rnix. On average, thechain accounted for only 30 percent of our total refl ect ive practice.

However, we all consistentlyrated the peer supewision chain as

beingjust as effective as traditionalone-to-one supervision. Lesley's

response in our slrrvey slrpportsthis: "I see it exactly the sane as arry

other individual supervision, paid

for or not. It's a place to use thesupervisor as a sounding boaldto deveiop practice, receive

challenges, be supportecl

plofessionally ancl to be heldaccountable for practice."

FigtLre l also reflects the widevariety of refl ective practices thatchain rnembers engaged in. This

lends weight to views expressed inprevious issues of CoachingatWork

byTatiana Bachkirova (201 1 ) and

Alison Hodge (20 l4) that

tradi tiona I one-to-one supervision

is not enough for fit-for-purposeCPD. They both encourage the

voluntary commitnent of coaches

to a range of activities with diverse

others. We acknowleclgecl thatbeing palt ofthe chain increasecl

the amounl. oIreflective practice

we engage in.

5o what's the hitch?Our ovelriding experience of the

chain has been positive. However,

Paid-for one-to-one superuision

Our peer superuision chain

Reflective journaling

Paid-for group superuision

Peer supervision one-to-one (reciprocal,

'unpaid') other than our chain

Mindfulness practice/meditation

Peer supervision group (reciprocal,

'unpaid') other than the chain

co-coaching (working in triads withother coaches and receiving feedback)

Other

Action learning sets

o Members of the chain need to be qualifled to similar levels as a supervisor

o Contracting is setf-managed each time by the pair concerned

o The pairings are not reciprocal at any one timecThe chain is 'shuffled'in each iteration to keep relationships 'fresh'

lanuary/February I Vol :.o lssue r @ zor5 | www.coaching-at-work.com

we also identified a nurnber oflimitations and drawbacks. For

example, Lhere is a lack ofcontinuity (only four consecutive

sessions with one supervisor eacir

rotation) and there have beendiffering levels of availability toshare the chain'adrnin'. Naturally,we are concerned with ourexperience that not ali

As the coaching and supervisionprofessions evolve, practitionersneed clear guidance on fit-for-purpose slrpervision and moreconsistent requirements forlecognition of supewisionarrangements. We hope theprofessional bodies lead thedebate, reviewing ancl refiningtheil position (see box, page 46).

So what do practitioners do inthe meantime? While we wait forgreater clarity to emerge, we have

highlighted the top four features

we believe contribute to theefficacy of any similar chain (see

box,page 4B). Further in[ormationabout setting up a peer chain willbe shared in Io olbox,in the nextissue of Coach ing atWork.

Our survey also asked membershow they'knew' Lhe supervisiorrthey received was of value.Responses fell into four clearcategories:

l.lmpact on our practice

2. A deepening of our awareness

3. Our sense of personal mastery

4. Our continuing commitment to

workwith each other.

We thinl< this is a useful means

of evaluating whethersupervision. of any kind, is

deliveling value.

coAcHrNq SuPERU|S|ON

What nert?We would like to hearyourexperiences of working with peers

and whcre rhey sit in yoLrr'

reflective practice activities. Inwriting this article, a ntunber ofquestions have emerged and we

will be posting these questions onttre Co aching Af Work LinkedlnGroup (linkd.in/lyPE23w). We

look forward to readingyourreactions there or by email. I

With thanks to our other chain

memb ers : Jill Ashley- one s,

Ant and a Cunnin gh ant, G illi an

Curtis, Janis IGnt, Lesley Matile,GiIIy Rutherfor d, G e orgin a

W o u d s tr a an d I an Wy ch e rl ey.

o Sarah Gilbert is an accredited

coach ontl certif ed coach srrpervisor

and has an MSc inWorkplaceC o un s ellin g. s arahgilb ert@ap sley as s o ci ate s. c o.uko Michelle Lucas is an applied

p sy cholo gist with an MBA. She is

also an accredited coach and

c o a chin g s up e rvis or. mi ch ell e @gr e e nfi eI il s c o n s ult an gt. c o,uko EveTurner is an experienced

senior BBC leader and an accredited

master executive coach and coach

s up e nt i s o r. ev e @ ev e -tunt er. co m

professional bodies recognisedour practice for accreditationpurposes and with the externalperceptions of cosiness.

So to ret urn to our openingpoint: what is it that is rnaking thedifference in how professional

bodies view the appropriateness ofpeer supervision for accreditation?

In relative terms, the coachingsupervision market is still in itsformative stages and it's perhaps

not surprising that we have yet toreach a common understanding.We sought clarification from each

ofthe professional bodies on theircurrent position on peer

supervision [or accreclital ionpurposes (see box, page 47).

To date there is no clarity on theacceptabi I i ry of peer supervi sion

and there are implicit and explicitassumptions:o That peer superMsion isnormally done on a directlyreciprocal basis

r That payment of money ratherthan exchange of time may be seen

as the valid'currency'o That the qualifi cations andexperience of the peer superuisorare more inportant than thequalifications and experience ofthe peer supervisee

rThat the relationship needs to be

free from a dual role, such as linemanager or business partnero That peer may imply that neitherparly is a suitably qualifiedplactitioner of supervisiono That peer supervision may not be

formally contracted for.

o T Bachkirova, 'Quiding tight,'in Coaching at Worh, 6 (S),pp46-9,zott

a T Bachkirova and P lackson, 'Peer supervision', in T Bachkirova,

P lackson and D Clutterbuck (eds.), Coaching and Mentoring Supervision,

Maidenhead: OUB zoma M Carroll and M Qitbert, On Being a Supervisee, London: Vukani Pubtishing, zoo5

a A qrant, Australian coaches'views on coaching supervision', in lnternational

Journal ofEvidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, to (2) ppa733

bit.lylrzlk686o P Hawkins and R Shohet,Supervision in the Helping Professions (4th ed),

Maidenhead: OUB zorz. A Hodge, 'Pillars of suppott',in Coaching at Work,g (q),ppl'-Z8,zotqo Q Schwenk and R lack, 'Leading the way',in Coaching at Work,8 (5), pp3z-6, zor3

o K St John-Brooks,lnternal Coaching,London: Karnac Books Ltd,2013

lanuary/February I Vol ro lssue r @ zor5 | www.coaching-at-work.com Coaching at Work 49