_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
Top Related