Supervise (v.)
late 15c., "to look over" (implied in supervising), from Medieval Latin supervisus, past participle of supervidere "oversee, inspect," from Latin super "over" (see super-) + videre "see" (see vision). Meaning "to oversee and superintend the work or performance of others" is attested from 1640s. Related: Supervised. (Etymonline.com, 2016)
It’s been a curiosity to me over the decade I’ve been working as a coaching supervisor, at how few coaches engage in supervision.
Perhaps, as coaching is still unregulated, why do something extra, that cost money and time, and is not a ‘must’ have? (The clear argument to this point is in this brilliant blog written by Monica Cable)
I wonder if it’s something about the way the word has come to be felt culturally. If I think about a supervisor, I connect back to my days in hospitality, where the supervisor was stereotypically someone who got paid more than me, and did less work, making my life harder and telling me what I was doing wrong. It’s not a positive association. As an adult, I cringe at the idea. There’s an implied competent:incompetent binary embedded in it.
In a profession where coaches are working one on one with very smart people, and charging for it, with varying levels of training and experience, the idea of being supervised can feed into the little voice in your head wondering if you’re doing it right. And most of us - me included don’t like indulging that voice, why voluntarily hire someone to give it more volume?
But the cost of a fear based decision not to engage in supervision, is high. Much higher, in fact, as reported by my supervisees, than not doing it.
The overwhelming emotion I experience from the coaches I would supervise is relief. Relief that they are not the only ones feeling insecure. Relief that they are not the only ones feeling the pressures of managing (sometimes unrealistic or unfair) organisational demands, and the needs of their clients. Relief that they are not the only ones feeling impatient, frustrated, and worn out by the clients and counterparts they engage with. Relief that they can be honest about these things, work with them in a supportive and challenging learning environment, and go back into their practices re-energised and re-connected.
It’s the opposite of what traditional supervision feels like. A supervisor, much like a coach, is not an expert in you or your work. They are specifically trained in a process that allows them to lift the awareness of systemic structural and personal dynamics, and to support their supervisees to lift out of their experience into something broader… it’s SUPERvision. More like the view from the international space station than some self important wanker telling you the coffee machine isn’t spotless. (Sorry, clearly there are some unresolved issues there… something to take to supervision perhaps?)
I am a coach, I am a supervisor. I currently engage in a supervision group, one on one supervision, coaching and therapy (for the coffee machine issues). This to me feels like having an army of supporters marching with me, and I can't imagine doing the work I do without them.
I feel like it’s time to shift the emphasis of supervision from the stick to the carrot. I’ve been on every soap box I could get access to for ten years, shouting about how any ethical coach worth their salt should be in supervision (ironically, taking up the more traditional role of the hyper-critical judge-y supervisior I am claiming not to be… another one for my therapist), but it doesn’t work. No one needs another thing added to the list of what we should be doing.
Forget being looked-over for imperfections, and let go of any old associations with being “supervised”. Come to supervision because it’s a place to play and practice and learn off-line. Group supervision in particular is collegial, supportive, and you get to learn heaps from watching other coaches, and tap into their wisdom, as they tap into yours.
And because the view is amazing.