[Terug naar hoofdpagina] [Contactgegevens]
Ethics of supervision and coaching
Sijtze de Roos
1. Introduction
Supervisors and coaches generally exercise their trade in a
responsible manner. In the course of their work they follow -
consciously or unconsciously - personally integrated moral
imperatives. But what are these about? Are they sufficiently strong
to deal with ethical problems? And would it not help the profession
forward to have these rather implicit morals formulated expressis
verbis?
My approach to this question will be as follows. To introduce the
subject properly, I will open with a few remarks on the specific
characteristics of supervision and coaching. As learning in
supervision and coaching always involves the personal and
professional identity of clients we are bound to act with justice
and care.
This calls for professional ethics, which, as I propose to show in a
third paragraph, ought to be an integral part of our methods and
professional conduct. As this is a demanding challenge, it may help
us to have the basic principles of our ethics formulated, for
instance in the format of a code of conduct, an ethical code or any
such document.
Formulating a code is not just a matter of adding a number of more
or less legally worded articles in a more or less logical sequence.
It needs some sense of perspective. From which frame of reference
are we looking at our ethics? Which dimensions, levels and
perspectives are there? What should be our approach? Some
terminological clarification may be helpful to address these
questions in good order. I will deal with these matters in the
fourth and fifth paragraph.
Following this, in paragraph 6 will be dedicated to the major
aspects of the ANSE Code of Ethics as it is now ready to be brought
forward to the next General Assembly (2012). I will conclude with a
few remarks on the possibilities and the limitations of codes of
ethics.
2. The inherent morality of supervision and coaching
What is characteristic of supervision and coaching? Both formats
can - on a practical level - be described as more or less systematic
trajectories of determined psychosocial guidance of, and support to,
‘normal people with normal challenges, encountering normal problems
in the context of normal professional labour and learning’; the term
‘normal’ referring to the absence of pathology.
In general, supervision is aiming more at the enhancement of
experiential learning processes in connection with professional
labour (such as in social work, medical or paramedical professions,
clerical work), while coaching focuses more on the improvement of
professional performance (such as in management or highly skilled
professional labour).1 Whatever the differences, supervisors and
coaches are both dealing with identity issues: human growth,
learning, self reflection, one’s place as professional in society,
the meaning of one’s life and work, one’s prospects, the ‘good’ use
of one’s talents, proper insight in one’s limitations, solving
morally charged problems, and the way people (learn to) understand
and construct their (public and private) ‘selves’2. Reflective
learning from one’s experiences is also learning about oneself.
To enhance these highly personal learning processes we have to
address the personal and the professional identity of our clients.
At the same time, our own personal and professional identity - in
all it’s socially constructed authenticity3 - is unavoidably at
stake. Supervisors and coaches ‘use their person as the most
important instrument of their trade’ and challenge their clients to
follow their example. Supervision and coaching, therefore, are
inherently ethically relevant activities4, heavily dependent on the
quality of contact between professional and client. This calls for
‘justice and care5’, the more so because even if people may be
individualised to a lesser or greater extend, yet for their very
existence they depend on others. People may be strong, talented and
purposeful, yet they are also essentially vulnerable. This ‘human
condition’, which we all share, deserves careful methodical handling
and needs to be supported by professional ethics6.
3. Basic values and professional ethics
Supervision and coaching require more than a set of more or less
correctly implemented methods and techniques. The work we do is
morally charged and multilayered. As supervisors and coaches we are,
of course, responsible for our part in the learning processes of our
supervisees or coachees. But they in turn have clients and
colleagues too. Whatever they learn in contact with us should also
be beneficial to their clients, their colleagues, to their company
or institution, and, if at all possible, to society at large.
Consequently, supervisors and coaches carry a heavy responsibility,
both professionally and socially. This, I would think, requires
astute ethical awareness. It is our moral obligation to take every
possible care. We have to see to it that ‘justice is done’ to all
directly or indirectly concerned persons, meaning that they will get
- not always what they ask for - but what they need. The difference
between what is asked for and what is needed in itself already poses
an ethical challenge, which supervisors and coaches encounter daily.
A sweet burden, indeed. But however sweet it may be, we are well
advised not to carry it all alone. We need exchange and discussion
with, and support of, our colleagues, which is a major rationale for
the existence of our professional organizations. In turn, these
organizations enhance the process of further professionalization,
including the institutionalization of professional ethics.
Once we organize ourselves in professional associations, we are
collectively able to promote our ‘personal’ ethics - so to speak -
to the level of a shared professional ethos. Professionalization
goes hand in hand with the clear and unequivocal formulation of what
collectively is seen as the proper exercise of the profession on
both the methodical and the ethical level. Thus, professional ethics
are part and parcel of the institutionalization of our trade.
Naturally this has been recognized by most, if not all, national
associations of the ANSE family. Most associations already have
codes, many of which are rather elaborate. In the national codes
ANSE reviewed, careful attention is given to what supervisors and
coaches should do, or on the other hand are prohibited to do, in
order to act methodically and ethically right7. Proper
(professional) conduct is the subject matter of these documents;
they show the behavioural boundaries of our trade.
Codification reflects the attention to professional ethics within
the ANSE family. But what should be said about the character and
quality of these codes? Are they practicable? Are they sufficiently
addressing the inherent morals of our trade? Are they enforceable?
To put it shortly: what should our codes - at minimum - contain, and
what does this mean to ANSE as a supranational body?
4. Codification: perspectives
In recent years several member organisations have pressed the
ANSE board to lay down a code of ethics, which could be used to
compare their own codes with or to help formulate one. Of course
ANSE has responded to these requests. But if ANSE is to formulate a
sensible code repeating what has already been done on a national
scale is of no use. Therefore, we need a different perspective from
which we could approach the subject of the fundamental ethics8 of
the profession.
Any perspective consists of three interdependent levels: the level
of reasoning or philosophy, the practical level of desirable effects
and the level of formulation. To begin with the first level: should
we reason deontologically or teleologically? Deontology - or the
ethics of duty - stipulates absolute rules which are valid in all
possible circumstances. According to Immanuel Kant, for instance,
torture is always wrong, even if other lives could be saved by it.
As Kant9 puts it in his categorical imperative: an act is moral if
one could at the same time want any other person to act in the same
way. “I will not torture, and I would want all mankind to refrain
from it too”.
An opposing perspective is the teleological one. Morally right is
any act that delivers the greatest advantage. A strong example of
‘liberal teleology’ can be found in Mill’s utilitarianism. He would
add: the greatest advantage to the greatest number of people.10
This seems to leave us with a clear cut choice, but we need to be
careful. In both perspectives there is no such thing as a
preordained, absolute ‘good’. Deontologically, one can only act
ethically right by consciously and willingly obeying ethical maxims,
and teleologically one has acted ethically right if the greatest
advantage to as many people as possible turns out to have indeed
been delivered.
In both perspectives the practical effect is of the essence. In the
deontological perspective ethical behaviour is a result of following
absolute laws - or rather maxims - which should lead to the desired
outcome (justice), in the teleological perspective the desired
outcome determines ex post facto the ethical quality of the initial
act. Because desired outcomes will obviously have to be assessed
beforehand, we could call this approach ‘prospective
consequentialism’.
What does this entail on the level of effects? We may focus more on
the ethical quality of our professional conduct, or more on the
desired outcome we strive after. It is possible to take yet another,
more pragmatic position. We could also focus more on the situational
demands we meet. There are good reasons for the latter: as people
differ and situations change continually, the appliance of absolute
rules may produce injustice - as sometimes happens - and in doing so
we may inadvertently produce results or bring about consequences
that are unethical11 in both the deontological and the teleological
perspective.
5. Codification: societal aspects
As Kant’s categorical imperative already strongly suggests,
there is more to it than just the individual level. ‘Doing the right
thing’ is far more demanding than ‘doing things right’, it needs the
virtue of empathy, the values of respect, justice and care, and
norms to weigh, manage and judge professional conduct.
Empathy is an innate human quality which most people are capable of.
The famous biblical maxim ‘do not unto others what you do not want
to be done unto you’ presupposes this quality. Values have to be
socially accepted, otherwise they could not be recognized and
appreciated as such, and norms apply only on the basis of collective
acceptance. So clearly there are social consequences which we have
to also address on the societal level – yet another reason for the
existence of professional organisations. Professional ethics require
social acceptance, and therefore depend on organization and
institutionalization.
ANSE aims to lay down a code of ethics that national organisations
could use to compare their own codes with. To bring this about, we
should clearly distinguish between the levels of reasoning,
practical effects and formulation. Or, to put it differently,
between virtues, values, norms and written rules.
Most codes of national organisations are normative and could
therefore be characterized as ‘codes of conduct’ or ‘regulatory
codes’12. What might be needed, and could be useful as a yardstick,
is a code on the levels of virtue and values: a code of ethics. To
name but one important aspect: accepting people as they are or want
to be is a virtue and respect its corresponding value. As we deal
with a Europe of many speeds, should we not take the differences in
the development of supervision and coaching between our countries in
account? Is not the situation in Lithuania, for instance, very
different from the Spanish situation?13 Equal treatment includes
ample attention to, and a respectful approach of, diversity14.
It follows that, on the level of formulation, we have to distinguish
between a ‘top down’ regulatory approach and an approach that
challenges professionals (and professional organizations) to aspire
to: the aspirational approach.
ANSE has chosen for an aspirational formulation, based on
deontologically inspired prescriptions with room for situational
ethics. Laws are always valid, but should be applied according to
ever changing circumstances of time and place. In other words: all
practitioners are expected to follow three basic guidelines: always
act according to the code of ethics of your organization, always see
to it that you know in which specific situation you do this, and
always carefully check if the outcome does justice to the client
(and other directly or indirectly involved persons).
The main reasons for the choice of ANSE are: the legal position of
ANSE, the differences between our countries and the desirability of
ongoing cross border discussion and debate on the ethics of our
trade. ANSE holds no power over national organizations and cannot,
nor would want to, prescribe ethical rules top down. Neither is ANSE
capable of formulating situationally specific codes of conduct in
detail. But ANSE most certainly could promote ongoing discussion
within and between national organisations. To be able to support
this and to inspire, ANSE has to be aspirational.
6. The ANSE Code of Ethics: aspects of content
The ANSE code of ethics is now in the process of final
formulation and will be brought forward at the next GA for
discussion, amendment and adoption. Inspiration was found in the
‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights15 and the various protocols
of the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’16. As all national
organisations of the ANSE family are signatories to the Universal
Declaration, and most countries affiliated with ANSE are signatories
to the protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights, coaches
and supervisors are bound by these declarations. The basic aspects
of content are power, trust and responsibility.
To start with: all supervisors and coaches wield power: the power of
their specific knowledge and competence, the power derived from
their role and position vis-à-vis the supervisee, the power of
formal judgment invested in them, the power of their professional
experience, and so on.
Secondly, to act in a just and careful manner (and to avoid useless
power games) supervisors and coaches will invest in trust. They will
not only show trust in their own competences, but see to it that
they are trustworthy in the eyes of their clients, colleagues and
constituents. They will radiate trust in the client, in his or her
potential, uniqueness and humanity, and they will actively
substantiate it in contact with the client (and others). As trust -
or faith if you want - implies the recognition of shared humanity,
the client may be able to feel accepted, to feel at home with
himself, with others and the world around him, and to be free to be
(or become) what he is or wants to be.
Finally supervisors and coaches mediate power and trust by
responsiveness. They will always feel responsible and will act
accordingly. As integral part of their professional attitude,
supervisors and coaches will take on the responsibility for their
support to the learning process of the client, for the maintenance
of their skills and for the reliability of the profession they
exercise. They will not shirk away from being taken to account. On
the contrary, they will gladly respond to that.
In dealing with power, trust and responsibility, supervisors and
coaches can only maintain their personal and professional integrity
if they position themselves autonomously vis-à-vis constituents,
clients and colleagues, take every care of proper contracting, at
all times guarantee confidentiality and always avoid to become a
party in conflicting interests. No one can serve more than one
master at the time.
There is, however, more to be done on the institutional level. ANSE
does not directly deal with individual supervisors and coaches, but
operates on the institutional level only. This raises questions
about the direction ANSE would favour our European family of
supervisors and coaches to take.
To give an indication: ANSE favours the development of ‘professional
honor’, and therefore calls upon national organizations to actively
support supervisors and coaches to be proud of their trade, stand
publicly for it and take honor in it. Honourable professionals are
autonomous, take their trade seriously, keep on learning, are
responsive, show integrity, and know how to position themselves in
between conflicting interests and expectations. Shortly: they show
high ethical aspirations. To be more precise: they show the ethics
of their trade in all their actions. In this way they are socially
recognizable as ‘honourable’ representatives of their profession.
They may even help to advance the ethical quality of society17, for
instance by their influence on the human quality of labour relations
in a globalizing world.18
Next to that, ANSE views professional ethics as a collective ‘good’
which deserves to be socially and institutionally guarded. Therefore,
ANSE would like to see national organisations develop, install and
maintain proper mechanisms of control and enforcement. At best these
arrangements should be independent, because independent judgement
and arbitration heightens transparency and social credibility19. To
top this all off, ANSE proposes an ‘ethic of international contact’
between our organisations, such as acceptance of, and due respect
for, the cultural and organizational diversity of the various
supervision and coaching situations in our countries.
7. Ethics in practice: examples
Beautiful words, certainly, but it is in everyday practice that
ethics are really put to the test. Let us, therefore, have a close
look at a few dilemmas and see how far we get.
1. Consider the classic tragedy20 of King Agamemnon. Bound by honour
and duty, with his fleet he set sail to Troy to save Helena,
daughter of Zeus, and to punish the Troyans that abducted her.
Halfway his destination the wind suddenly fell, and the fleet made
no progress for days on end. Food and water supplies ran out,
sailors began to mutter and morale went down with alarming speed. In
despair Agamemnon turned for help to a seer. The priest in turn
consulted his frog’s bones and urgently advised Agamemnon to
sacrifice his daughter, Iphigenea, to the Gods. Should he choose not
to have his daughter killed, no wind would come and he would remain
stuck halfway, so betraying his men and his holy duty. This oracle
put Agamemnon in a terrible spot. Whatever his choice, the outcome
would always be disastrous.
Now just suppose you are his coach or supervisor, how would you
guide and support him? And: what support would you yourself expect
from colleagues? If there is a professional code, what should be in
it to help you?
2. Let us now move on to a problem every one of us could come across
every working day. Suppose you are contracted by a firm to coach and
supervise staff members and middle managers. The general idea is to
help them reach their full potential and so to benefit both the
company and themselves. Alas, due to economic bad weather the firm
has to cut staff. The director calls for you and asks you to take a
number of employees in coaching, and to help them leave the company
‘out of their own free will’. Without really saying so he subtly
makes it clear that there are, of course, always other coaches. So
you feel your contract might be at stake.
What are you going to do? Why? Do you find support by your
colleagues, your organisation and by the ethics of your trade? How?
Ethical problems are always difficult, and dilemmas have no easy
solution, if at all. Yet we are bound to act professionally, that is
also: ethically. That is why we need support from each other, and
why we may find guidelines in our ethical code. But no code will
ever solve problems for us; that we will have to do all by ourselves.
In the end, ethics have to be lived in real life, and therefore, to
be integrated in our personal and professional identity.
8. Conclusion
Ethical codes are helpful as guidelines, but it would be naïve
to expect that ethical conduct can be regulated by protocol alone.
Too much belief in codes could even - as often happens - lead to a
practice of ‘ticking off items on a list’. But if we tick off all
the prescribed steps, would this mean that we dealt with our dilemma
in a just and careful way, let alone that we found a solution? I
don’t think so. Codes will never guarantee good conduct. Again:
‘doing things right is not the same as doing the right thing.’
Codes, therefore, should be used sensibly; not as problem solving
protocols, not as an automatic pilot, not as a substitute for
personal and professional responsibility, but as guidelines, as
points of reference, as maxims in the sense of Kant’s categorical
imperative.
To enhance professional honor, which is based on methodical and
ethical sound foundations, codes are helpful but not enough.
Continuous attention to the ethical aspects of our trade should be
part and parcel of supervisory education. Permanent awareness of our
professional ethics - both individual and institutional - is a
conditio sine qua non for the advancement of our trade. We need to
be well organised to live up to that responsibility.
References:
1 ANSE Office, Codes of Conduct BSO, DGSv,
LVSC, ?VS, ANSE, Vienna, 2010
2 Appiah, Kwame Anthony, The Honor Code - How Moral Revolutions
Happen, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 2010
3 Appiah, Kwame Anthony, The Ethics of Identity, Princeton,
Princeton University Press, 2004
4 Borst, Hans, Je doet het nooit goed (You never seem to do it
right), in: Sijtze de Roos (ed.), Supervisie in Onderwijs en
Ontwikkeling (Supervision in Education and Development), Springer
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, Houten, 2010
5 De Roos, Sijtze i.c.w. Ines Rinke, Considerations a Priori and
Preamble to the ANSE Draft Code of Ethics, ANSE, Vienna, 2010
6 Dworkin, Ronald, Sovereign Virtue - Theory and Practice of
Equality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2000
7 E.E.C., Protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights, E.C.,
Rome / Strassbourg, 1950 -1961
8 Kant, Immanuel, Kritiek van de Zuivere Rede (Critique of Pure
Reason), Boom, Amsterdam, 2004 (Riga, Hartknoch, 1781, 1787)
9 Kant, Immanuel, Kritiek van de Praktische Rede (Critique of
Practical Reason), Boom, Amsterdam, 2006 (Riga, Hartknoch, 1788)
10 Knopf, Wolfgang & Sijtze de Roos, The Advancement of Supervisory
Learning: Science, Profession or Practical Wisdom. In: Supervision –
Mensch, Arbeit, Organisation 1-2009, pp 23 -27, Beltz Verlag,
Weinheim, 2009
11 Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, Bartleby.Com, New York, 1992
(London, Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869)
12 Montesquieu, Baron Charles Louis de, The Spirit of the Laws (De
l’Esprit des Loix), Boom, Amsterdam, 2006 (Barillot, Genève, 1748)
13 Nussbaum, Martha, The Fragility of Goodness - Luck and Ethics in
Greek Tragedy and Philosophy (revised edition), Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge U.K. / New York, 2001
14 Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (revised edition), 4th printing,
Belknap Harvard, Cambridge Mass., 2001
15 Sen, Amartya, The Idea of Justice, Belknap Harvard, Cambridge,
Mass., 2009
16 Senghaas-Knobloch, Eva, Internationale Arbeitsregulierung für ein
menschwürdiges Leben weltweit. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte,
34-35 / 2010, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Berlin, 2010
17 Taylor, Charles, De Malaise van de Moderniteit (The Ethics of
Authenticity), Kok, Amsterdam / Kampen, 4th printing, 2004
18 Taylor, Charles, Sources of the Self - The making of the Modern
Identity, Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press, 8th printing,
2006
19 Tronto, Joan, Moral Boundaries - a Political Argument for an
Ethic of Care, Boom. Amsterdam, 1994
20 United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Palais de
Chaillot, Paris, 1948
© 2011 ANSE & Sijtze de Roos
Vienna, Austria / Delft, The Netherlands
1 With this description I follow the concept of supervision and
coaching as it is commonly understood in The Netherlands.
Definitions of coaching and supervision may differ in other
countries. Changing definitions will, however, not alter the fact
that supervision and coaching are inherently morally charged
activities.
2 See Appiah, 2004, Taylor, 2006
3 See Taylor, 2004, 2006
4 See Knopf & De Roos, 2009
5 See Tronto, 1994
6 See Tronto, 1994
7 See ANSE office, 2010
8 See Rawls, 2001
9 See Kant, 2004, 2006
10 See Mill, 1992
11 See Amartiya Sen, 2009
12 See De Roos & Rinke, 2010
13 See De Roos & Rinke, 2010
14 See Appiah, 2004, Dworkin, 2000
15 United Nations, Palais de Chaillot, Paris, 1948
16 EEC, Rome, 1950 – Strassbourg, 1961
17 See Appiah, 2010,
18 See Senghaas-Knobloch, 2010
19 See Montesquieu, 2006, Rawls, 2001
20 See Borst, 2010, Nussbaum, 2001