Coaching Supervision, Seven Conversations, and Useful Fictions

I was unable to get to David Clutterbuck's recent workshop for the EMCC, unfortunately. However, some colleagues who went told me that it was very good, and passed on various snippets. The topic was 'How to co-manage and get the best out of supervision.'

One of the things that struck me as helpful is the concept of the seven conversations that the coach could review with his or her supervisor.

The first two are before the meeting: the coach's internal conversation, and the coachee's internal conversation. The next three are during the meeting: the conversation between the coach and the coachee; and (of course) their respective internal conversations. And the final two are the respective internal conversations after the meeting.

When talking about the coachee's internal conversations, we are, of course, making it up. We cannot know for sure (even if we ask) what the coachee's internal conversations are. Nonetheless, it is a valuable area to explore, as it provides access to other aspects of the coach's thinking and processing, that we might otherwise not explore. Thus it is what I categorise as a 'useful fiction.'

For example, if a coach tells the supervisor that she thinks the coachee's conversation prior to the meeting revolved around a sense of guilt for not having done what the coachee said he would do at the last meeting, that opens up a very interesting range of issues for the supervisor to explore with the coach, that might not have come up otherwise. These could include how accountability is contracted for and managed; whether the coach felt adequately prepared for the meeting (ie is this projection?); and so on.

So while it may be nothing like what the coachee's internal conversation was in fact, it is still a useful thing to explore. That is what I mean by a useful fiction. In fact, that notion of 'useful fictions' is looming large in my thinking at present: I may write further about it in due course...

Interesting Assumptions

I have just completed the first assignment for my ILM diploma in coaching. It was an interesting process, and I have enjoyed engaging with a wider range of literature, and some very stimulating conversations with my tutor, Simon Whalley of Bluetree Development. 

However, I was struck by, and indeed took exception to, some of the assumptions made by whoever devised the assignment. The title was 'Establish the organisational context, strategy, culture and processes for coaching or mentoring at a senior level.' That was fair enough: it is a diploma in Executive Coaching, after all.

But consider this: 'Critically review the skills and behaviours required for ethical practice in coaching or mentoring at a senior and strategic level,' and also this:  'Justify the importance and role of codes of practice, contracting and supervision at this level of coaching or mentoring practice.'

In both of these cases, there seems to be an implication that there is something distinctive about working with senior people; as though those lower in the organisational hierarchy do not need their coaches to be ethical, nor to contract well, follow codes of practice or receive supervision.

Clearly that is nonsense. 

And it may be that I am being over-pedantic in picking up on the wording so precisely, but I fear I am not. Rather I think it plays into another agenda, and one which the coaching bodies such as AC and EMCC risk colluding with: that there is something superior about executive coaches.

I find some of my clients make the same assumption: in tenders, I am regularly asked about differential pricing for senior and junior coaching. But to me that makes no sense. Some of the most challenging work I have done (challenging for me and for the person being coached) has been with people at a low level in the hierarchy. Likewise, some (though not all) of my senior clients are very easy to coach: they are bright, open to learning, adept at finding what will be useful and integrating it into their thinking or behavioural repertoire, and so on.

As I start work on a voluntary basis with some troubled families, I suspect I may find some tougher work with unemployed people or youngsters still in education than anything I have encountered so far - indeed, that is one of the reasons I am choosing to volunteer for that work.


So just as I am wary of those who style themselves Master Practitioners of whatever field of OD they practice, so I am wary of those who label themselves Executive Coach.

For me, a good coach is a good coach - and a big ego is not a pre-requisite...

Shakespeare and Coaching

I went to a fascinating workshop yesterday evening hosted by EMCC at Manchester. It was run by Mary Holmes and was exploring the relevance of her passion for Shakespeare to her work as a coach.

Along the way she scattered many gems: the idea that Lear had two coaches, Kent and the Fool, really struck me; and as she pointed out, the Fool had that particularly valuable coaching skill: knowing when to end the coaching relationship.

She shared a little of her own autobiography to explain where the passion for Shakespeare came from, and the many aspects of his life and work that she draws inspiration from. But she was equally interested in inviting us to explore what inspired us, and what difference it made to our coaching clients if we were inspired.

This prompted wide-ranging and stimulating discussion, not least as I found myself working with Keri Phillips, whom I have met a couple of times, both a very long time ago, and who proved as thought-provoking as ever.

And of course the evening was peppered with Shakespearian quotations that take on a whole new resonance when applied to the world of coaching.

Another fascinating reflection was Mary’s discussion of the scene in Henry IV part 1, in which Prince Hal and Falstaff play act Hal’s forthcoming meeting with his father, with Falstaff as the king; and then reverse roles, and the effect that change of perspective has on Prince Harry. This is classic coaching stuff (eg three-chair work, or perceptual position work, or however you frame it) and I had never seen it as such before.

We also discussed inspiration further, and noted its relationship with other concepts, such as aspiration, respiration, perspiration, and expiring…

And the whole business of theatre is rich with learning for coaches, from consideration of scripts and rehearsal, through to the role of the Director, and the relationship of the audience to the work, and the whole business of story, ambiguity, and where you choose to shine a light (and where you don’t).

So a completely fascinating evening, which I will continue to reflect on for some time.