HEADLINE DATA: How has your or your supervisee’s practice changed?

In hindsight I realised this question was worded ambiguously, so it was not clear whose practice they were referring to in terms of change. So, what was this about? I think I may have been confused here. I hoped the supervisors’ practice would change as a result of participating in the Project, and I wanted to know whether their supervisees’ practice was changing as a result of their supervision. Notwithstanding that I was unclear in my brief to them, I was also curious that at the first of these two SG ALS Meetings, no one asked me whose changes I wanted to know about, and it was interesting that they tended to report on changes to their supervisees’ practice in precedence to their own. At the same time, several did report that their practice was changing as a direct result of participating in the tasks of the Project.

Bearing this in mind, some of the changes the supervisors described included: shining the light on the supervisees’ work and clients, giving greater awareness and insight. The relationship changed over time which impacted on how the supervisee showed up not only in supervision but also in how they engaged with their clients. Several supervisors described how they worked with and made explicit what was going on between

themselves and their supervisees which in turn informed them both around what might be happening in the client system. By challenging the

highlight the parallel process with coachees and help their supervisees identify new approaches.

“We are both changing as a process....I may be listening more

deeply, I’m not sure....For me the quality of the relationship is crucial to what goes on in the work, so as I allow myself to move towards her and she’s allowing herself to move towards me, then it generates something in both of us, and she is learning to steady herself....another thing I do a lot more of as I sense her settling into herself is we step back more and we view the whole system, who’s there and what they are doing and how are they impacting etc. She’s making some really key shifts in her capacity to be present with people, as I make key shifts in my capacity to be present with her.” (SG01)

“In the previous session we had talked about contracting with a

particular client and she was saying that the rigorous contracting that she had done subsequently, so there was a change in that she was much more rigorous about contracting and....what do I learn about myself in every Supervision session that I have a tendency to be the Coaching Police....and one of things I’ve noticed is that the learning happens in the space in

between.” (SG04)

6.2.4.3 HEADLINE DATA: What’s influenced the changes?

Some acknowledged that the discipline of writing reflective notes for the Project was impacting on them and deepening their own reflections and insights. They also concluded that as they deepened their relationship with their client, so they both made changes and that this was emergent rather than through major “aha” moments. Some supervisors considered that their/their supervisee’s practice changed over time and as they

became more familiar with each other and the trust and safety was established.

“What’s influenced the changes is the coming here, reading over

my notes, the deepening of my relationship with my

Supervisee...I’d like to reflect on the impact of this process on me and how I work - I know it’s having an impact, keeping the notes, sending them in, listening to you folk, listening to you - whole wonderful delicious cake.” (SG01)

“I am finding this project is really challenging my practice as a supervisor, and really getting me to rethink and reconnect with principle beliefs I hold about personal responsibility, accountability and in particular the relational nature of the supervisory

relationship.” (SG05)

6.2.4.4 HEADLINE DATA: What goes on at a relational level?

The supervisors declared that trust and safety improved and deepened over time, which allowed both parties to disclose more thoughts and feelings and to bring more of themselves to their work, thus extending the learning for them both. By creating a level of intimacy in these

relationships the supervisors saw how their supervisees took this into their coaching thus enhancing the development and learning for their coachees. They identified that there was real value in the continuity of the supervision relationship. Aside from deepening and building the relationships, in the context of the unpredictable and turbulent economic and commercial climate at the time, the supervisors noticed that their presence was stabilising for their supervisees.

“So, relationally it’s a very collaborative process, it builds a lot of

practice. ...it’s a shared sense of responsibility and interest when you get brought into it, it’s very intimate, and the articulating of ideas is very constructive.” (SG02)

“My reflections on what happened that day is that I was more conscious...as this relationship develops I think we need to have an even more honest conversation about boundaries and roles in her coaching space and in our supervision space and be honest about what it’s there for...this supervision is new for her and we have come a long way after two sessions and my big questions are about intimacy, but it is happening

slowly.” (SG04)

“What has become explicit is the idealisation of the other. So I immensely honour her experience, practice and way of being, and she honours mine. As we have made that conversation more explicit it has fundamentally changed the work, the supervision works and its impact.” (SG05)

6.2.4.5 The Closing Dialogue

One member of the group remarked on how I shared that I didn’t know what I would do with all the data and I appeared to be ok with this “not knowing”. I was comfortable with “not knowing” as I hope I can also sit with this when supervising and trust the “not knowing”. (This was an echo of a conversation with my Project Consultant who encouraged me to stay with the uncertainty and not knowing.) This raised a question for me later around how comfortable the participants were with “not knowing” within the Project and how they managed any anxiety here, and whether this might show up in their practice as supervisors? Through this

conversation, I was able to consider my own practice where the

of trying to control. We remarked here on how all our supervisee/clients need to find some certainty and order in a turbulent and chaotic world. We also saw a parallel with how the supervisee needs to support the coachee in the client organisation where unpredictability and constant change are often the norm, just as I was having to do as lead researcher in this Project.

We explored how having guidelines and principles can allow for

divergence and difference in approach, so here again were parallels with meeting the guidelines of the research approach, alongside the

recommended guidelines from the coaching associations for coaching supervision.

As we were considering what we would explore at the next ALS meeting, one person acknowledged their particular enjoyment in this session as we concentrated on what goes on between the supervisor and the supervisee. I too acknowledged that this was one of my biases that I had introduced for us to explore even though it didn’t emerge explicitly in the first SG ALS meeting. This was informed by my own practice with clients. I hold a question in my head when I’m not sure what’s happening or if something is sticky or we’re feeling stuck: “I wonder what’s going on between us at a

relational level?” I also shared my own view that the significance of the

relationship in supervision has not been clearly communicated to the coaching profession as a whole until now and I was curious why this was the case.

What was reassuring and heartening for me at the end of these two SG ALS Meetings was that I again felt connected to the group, albeit we had not all met together. By sharing reflections and practice we were building our relationship, the trust and safety, thus meeting my need and wish for the opportunity for learning to emerge for us all through this process.

As it happened, I did not revisit my concern about why we had not

managed to meet all together during these SG ALS meetings. I’m not sure what this was about. Maybe I was afraid to do this as I was keen not to upset what equilibrium and trust we appeared to have established. I was aware that if I did explore this, I may have appeared judgmental of the SG, that may have triggered defensiveness, shame and mistrust that may have impacted on their subsequent engagement and participation. This area of inquiry could wait as I was not sure whose concern it was: mine, specific individuals within the group, the group as a whole, a parallel for the unconscious phenomena in the field of supervision at the time.

I agreed with both groups that we would hold our third ALS Meeting at the end of May and thereafter hold a Review/Ending Meeting when we would reflect on our experience of participating in the Project.