The literature review identified three specific gaps in theoretical knowledge, as shown in figure 3:
lack of empirical research on the lived-in experiences of coaching supervisees at all stages of professional development;
lack of evidence about coaching supervisees in relation to some key themes in the literature, in particular, power differentials; how supervisees may sabotage their learning; supervisee anxiety; supervisee disclosure; how supervisees can contribute to good supervision; conflict, ruptures and repairs in supervision; and
lack of an empirically informed framework with guidelines for how supervisees can get the most from their coaching supervision.
Throughout this thesis I have argued that the coaching supervisees’ perspective is a crucial element without which issues and debates about coaching supervision are incomplete. To address the lack of literature on the role of the supervisee in coaching supervision this first study looked at what helps and hinders supervisees in their coaching supervision. The results of this study address the three theoretical gaps in knowledge and add to the debates about coaching supervision in various ways.
184
New evidence is provided about how supervisees can block themselves psychologically during supervision, challenging the common misconception in the literature that successful coaching supervisory outcomes are largely related to supervisor behaviours. To date there has been no empirical evidence on how coaching supervisees can sabotage their learning. Supervisees’ block themselves through lack of preparation, utilising diversion tactics, such as self censoring, and holding limiting beliefs about the potential of learning, for example holding an assumption that supervision is remedial and being reluctant to focus on what is going well. This evidence contributes to theoretical debates about the important and equal role that supervisees play in the success of supervision and highlights the need for empirically grounded literature to guide coaching supervisees through the supervision process.
Further empirical evidence is provided about the prevalence, contexts and consequences of supervisees’ anxiety, fear of exposure and judgment, vulnerability and shame during coaching supervision as perceived by supervisees. For example, fear was greater for novice supervisees and supervisees receiving group or internal supervision. This adds to debates on the role and impact of anxiety, vulnerability and shame on disclosure and learning in coaching supervision (Cavicchia, 2010, Cohen, 2014, De Haan, 2016b) and the beneficial effects of supervisees moving towards fear by exposing it during supervision and using it constructively.
New light is shone on coaching supervisees’ lack of agency in a number of areas, particularly early on in their development as a supervisee. Novice supervisees are unsure what coaching supervision is and how to make the best use of it and supervisees can be reluctant to discuss supervisory issues that arise in the relationship and to change supervisor when their learning has plateaued. This is the first study in coaching supervision to provide evidence about typical issues that can arise in the coaching
185
supervisory relationship from the supervisee perspective, reasons why coaching supervisees may choose not to discuss the issues with their supervisors and the potential impact of avoiding discussions on the coaching supervisory relationship. The study indicates why coaching supervisees change supervisor, the positive and negative reasons for some supervisees being reluctant to do so and why coaching supervisees lack transparency about their reasons for ending the supervisory relationship.
Findings provide new evidence to support concerns about the role of power and unequal power balance particularly between novice supervisees and their supervisors. This study contributes insights on the potential sources of coaching supervisor and supervisee power, what underlies the power dynamic and how this can shift over time. Fresh insights are generated into how coaching supervisees can contribute to good supervision. Coaching supervisees have learnt to maximise the benefits of supervision as they have matured through adopting a positive mind-set, co-creating the relationship with their supervisor and participating more actively in the supervision process. The evidence includes how supervisees can find supervisory relationships that work, how they can share the driving seat during supervision and how they can keep attuned with their supervisor over the length of their supervisory relationship.
The study adds to evidence that supervisor training increases coaches understanding of coaching supervision, their willingness to have it, reduces coaching supervisees’ anxiety and increases the level of responsibility they take in the process. This study raises a question about why supervision training is focused largely on supervisors and builds a case for coaching supervisee training being available to all coaches.
186
The study contributes empirical insight into the benefits of coaching supervision from the perspective of the supervisee. The evidence covers what is learnt, how it is learnt, the impact of the learning, what supervisees value about their supervisors, positive emotions generated through supervision and how these benefits and rewards become magnified over time. This adds to debates on the outcomes of coaching supervision from the supervisee perspective.
A number of psychological and social processes are identified that might explain the lived-in experiences of the participants. These are fear, power relations and the natural capacity for learning. The study goes beyond the empirical data to consider the underlying mechanisms that explain the experiences of supervisees and to suggest how supervisees and supervisors can take actions to address potential issues and enhance coaching supervision at a fundamental level.
The study provides evidence of stages of maturity as supervisees develop and this can enable supervisees to understand where they are in their development journey. The stages add to debates and literature on coaching supervisee developmental models (Hawkins and Smith, 2006) and to developmental models for supervisees in the helping professions (Hogan, 1964, Stoltenburg, 1981, Stoltenberg and Delworth, 1987, Stoltenberg and McNeill, 2010, Carroll and Gilbert, 2011) by providing empirical evidence about how coaches at different levels of maturity approach supervision. In particular, the reasons supervisees have supervision; how they choose their supervisor; how they describe their psychological state; the material they take to supervision; what they want from their supervisor; the power dynamic with their supervisor; the nature of their reflection and learning during and after supervision; and their role in ensuring the quality of their supervision.
187
The study contributes to conceptualisation and definitions about coaching supervision by advocating that coaching supervision needs to be supervisee-led and providing a new definition of a coaching supervisee that reflects the supervisee’s empowered role in the process. This study adds empirical insight into debates about supervisee and supervisor responsibilities during coaching supervision. It may be that the roles and responsibilities need further adaptation to maximise the benefits of the supervision experience. Finally, this study’s main contribution to theory is a framework for supervisee-led supervision, which reflects the supervisee perspective in coaching supervision (figure 14). It aims to fill the gap in terms of empirically informed frameworks that may lead to guidelines for how coaching supervisees can maximise their learning from coaching supervision.