In this episode, my guest is Dr. Michel Moral, an executive-turned-clinical psychologist – turned coach, who had a great impact on the development of the field of supervision in coaching. Michel has been active in the field of coaching for long years now, published extensively (this includes more than 10 books for example), and has shared his knowledge actively. In this conversation we reflect on his past, his perspective on the development of supervision and the whole coaching field, and of course some of his research activities. 

Hello, my name is Zoltan Csigás, and this is Zoltan Podcast ON COACHING. . In the series, I'm talking with an internationally renowned coaching scientists and coaches. We explore their personal and professional insights on the science of coaching, and on the helping professions. Are you interested in how they got close to his profession? Are you curious about the new frontiers they are exploring right now? Join me and listen to the conversation, inspiration, and some fun is ahead. Welcome, Michel, I'm very happy to have you as my next conversation partner. It's not a surprising thing to say that we have known each other previously. And that's one of the reasons why I've invited this this series is I've always admired your commitment to research when we were meeting in the MCC international groups and all the activities. How may I introduce you to our audience, because I know so many things about you. But I would love to hear how you would introduce yourself.

Well, I defined myself as a former engineer on to psychology, so I, I hold the diploma of engineering, or in the past, of a well known French school, became a doctor in clinical psychology years after that. So quite recently, in fact, it was in 2007, that I got my doctorate and

whenever someone Mason's 2000, they read like no study years come to my mind, I still think that Okay, any article published after 2000 is pretty new. But then I just, you know, check the calendar and all that that has already been history circle,

live produced, I published a lot, I mean, 20 books have been the most recent one is, this one

02:03

is we are just recording the voice, we will just had the the title in English, if there is an English title.

Now there is the main the English version is not done yet, we have that in our plan, it's a collective. So it will be less a burden to make the translation in English, the plan, sales aren't going well. So there is options that you will see an English reaction. It's an observation of the market on 10,000 feet or meters if you prefer, trying to understand how the tech the tectonic plates influencing each other. And when I say tectonic plates, there is coaching, which is currently exploding to pieces. And all these pieces need to have their own supervision. They are regulators, they have professional bodies. Now, a new player appeals, which is platforms, platforms up finance. So there is also finance now in the game, technology research Souls is tectonic plates influencing each other. And the book is about that, considering that where do we go?

That sounds very interesting. And I have never heard this expression of tectonic plates before. But it's a very, very picturesque representation of what we are talking about. What just catches my attention is that you said coaching is exploding to peak space.

explosion is a little bit dramatic, but in fact, somatic Express. In fact, it's like Monte Carlo Monte because at the beginning, there wasn't there is still individual coaching. Now we have team coaching which is quite popular on the world. Also with debit card, Tilburg and this is very developed in France, there is a team of teams coaching. Now internal coaches want to have their own techniques, their own competence framework, knows there is coaching with horses use specific techniques. There is coaching of identity, which is more and more popular purchasing of these coaching of that soul. So this is what we call fragmentation. And fragmentation means that all these little pieces will have their own supervision their own articles in some kind of code of ethics. They also will have their own supervision. And so the whole this world of coaching is getting more complicated or even more complex. This is what we call five multi Sure enough question. I use the word explosion, because in fact, it might accelerate.

What's your opinion? Is this explosion or as it is accelerating, and all these new areas and fields are emerging? So what's your opinion? Is this a useful or good process? I hurt to pay? I've been in a number of conversations, and some of my conversation partners say that some of these Yeah, just, you know, marketing tricks. And videos share the same foundation. So we have we have these coaches, and those coaches and lots of data, all those. How do you see this process? Is this a good thing that's helped the profession? Or is this over a certain boundary where it is not serving us anymore?

Of course, you know, I always look at things with systemic, in fact, it's what I call multi causal, I mean, multi causes. So for instance, Tim Cook things, I think, Tim coaching is a very reasonable move from individual coaching. Because the coach, she is very, was very often talking about the team, the relationship with with the team members. And so, the invention of team coaching came naturally, it was not going to short quick. Now, some fragments of coaching, probably, therefore, the smell of commerce in that instance, are pushing with hoaxers, it's in fact, a new technique, which has justification, and is a justification is that the horse is a very emotional animal. And if we use correctly, this emotion and intuition, we can have results, which are found much better than when without a boss. So you see, it's because of things like for instance, or it appears that by instance, executives and leaders have new needs, and we don't know how to treat these new needs, with coaching, individual coaching as it is, some people are thinking about the combination of coaching and mentoring with Zig core, for instance, executive challenge or executive sourcing ICF is talking about coaching conversations, and things like that. So there is emerging needs of the market, there is a creativity of good shows, especially when there is money at the end of the

political we are, this is a business. So

this is a business. So this is normal. And there is also the emergence of new things, which are just the emergence like life, emotion at some point of time. And after all, it's good, you see, like that, but for instance, coaching of Team of Teams, it's I think it's just the idea that we had we had individual team, and then why not Team of Teams, but now the construction of a team of teams coaching is something quite difficult because it's much more complex, it's competing with organizational development to try to tell there are under market is pushing for more focus on climate not focus on productive focus on lack of

climate change, sustainability, these are other topics that I do hear quite often.

Yeah, there is some complexity in our market and I think that the coaching industry, I mean, coaching, monitoring and supervision industry is doing its best which to cope with the market request.

And I see that is a very natural thing. And I honestly I welcome all these innovations sometimes I have the question as a research focused person whether these innovations really add value whether they really bring something new and and useful for the profession or are they just the Moodle things wrapped in a different rep or in a in a different package check. And that's where my criticism or evidence, self criticism, that's where my curiosity is coming from?

Well, now, I have no idea because we have no way or tool to assess the effect of continuing history on common good. I mean, we have no measurement tool, no idea. You Not to say that what we do is good or not scientific, scientific to the scientific Lee design tools, I mean, not just, yeah, of course, pushing is good, but we don't have anything to assess that.

But that'll be such an interesting thing to have, what I need to be able to prove that our profession contributes to the greater good of society.

But as usual, I mean, the effect of a tool or something, the positive effects and negative effects. You don't know

these other any negative effects of coaching, but you are aware of this is just, I didn't plan to ask this question. But as you mentioned, it it sounds so interesting, as in all the previous conversations that I had we, we were really focusing on, on positives and under development and whatever. And you just mentioned, potential negative effects. And I'm curious, are there any negative effects that you were aware of, to be aware of, and to avoid?

Again, I have a systemic view on everything. So when, for instance, I coach an executive, and the request of the executive to please is their performance increase and make their company more effective, no effectiveness, let's say, then, of course, a number of people will be fined because these people needed to produce more, I mean, is a request of the the executive is to help him to help to have a more competitive company. Of course, not competitive company, means less people to have a bigger income. You know, in a systemic world, when you do something here, there is an effect there. Are there are there these effects might be negative, the effect on the client is positive?

I think that's really important to be aware of. And what brings you to the systemic perspective. So where is it coming from? Is it your engineering background? Or is it coming? Is it coming from from a different place?

No, we came from studies at university. I started my studies on coaching, psychology, clinical psychology a long time ago, because at that time, I had, I was an employee of a doctor company, we're studying psychology in planes would join my official trips in hotels, when I was away from my home, and I had nothing else to do so started at the very beginning of studies about psychology. And so it started, I think it was in 1995, something like that. And this is where I discovered system theories,

what is the addition of the systemic perspective to your practice? So, why are you a fan? If I can use this word? Why are you a fan of systemic approaches?

Well, in fact, in my approach, either coaching or supervision, I always consider the in the person and especially in person or aspects, the relationship and the system. Now, beyond the system, I'm looking at the organizational aspects, which are coming from a background as a as a director of organization. Years ago, when I was an employee of IBM, so now I consider four levels. It's like an earnings call layoffs, when a wizard could see or with a company supervise you functioning, how are you relating? How do you consider of your own your own world? How do you function in something which is called an organization?

What is the added value that it gives? Does it give extra insights to your clients? To be aware of these external things? Does it help you to give different or other injections so what why would you recommend a systemic perspective for others who are not really enjoys?

In clinical psychology we have there is something which is called the the evil are the source of the pain, the origin of the pain and what they've learned there is that in psychopaths Energy is that the source of the pain is not always new. It can be interrelationship in the system. I mean, some family functioning makes that one of the family me, family member also fails. But in fact, as some physical effects, for instance, but it is not caused by something inside him or her, but it's an effect of the portion of the family. So it is exactly the same constancy to if you take scapegoating.

15:37

She's watching, I didn't understand the word

scan. You see what it is, I mean, the group is considering one of the number as being the cause of everything. But this is a group functioning, it's not the scapegoat is usually not responsible for Moses doing his best. It's like, you know, in the Old Navy, didn't like to have a woman beside her on the boat. So but I mean, just say everything, which is working only is due to the presence of this red hair a woman for retention. Yeah, so the vody How do you call that the team but the call to reconsider its function.

And in doing so and what I'm hearing and what I'm getting from it is that it can help be the individual, so your client to move out from the searching for the in their fault, that whole potential mistake if it is not there. And for me to hear that is that I, as I've been seeing a number of books, so we're seeing a number of schools and approaches to coaching, I see a trend in, in psychology getting into coaching, and everyone. So in quotation marks, lots of the coaches and lots of OD helping professionals are looking for in their causes in people and we are a lot of us are into raising self awareness, finding your own mistakes, I see a trend of over secularization if I can see that word in coaching, and while you are seeing the systemic prospective firms have the to change this channel to add that extra perspective that it's not always the internal calls that needs needs to be addressed.

So when a coach and coach she says, It's not my fault, it's not the fault of my team, is the fault of the general manager, or is that uncertain certain that I usually don't believe that. Because it's never my fault.

That we don't like to take responsibility for bad things. That's I think that's in line with human nature of things here. No one likes to be played. Oh, God, we

were on why system two is so important for you. I mean, that was your, your question. So I was just trying to answer. Maybe it's too The answer is too long.

I absolutely like it, I don't think it's too long. What is what I liked in your last sentence, you said that you don't believe when your Kochi says that it is the fault of the general manager or the team or, or whoever else. And before that, we were talking just about thinking the opposite, that there can be causes of the pain outside of the coachee. We can only work with the coachee in the here and now because he's the person or she's the person that came to coaching, we can change the other people, we can help them to change, we can just help the coachee themselves. So what is the line where you draw the responsibility between the coachee and the environment?

First of all, when I say I don't believe the coachee I don't mean is a liar. Maybe Maybe because there is in constant automatic defending the mechanism. Which means that the code she is doing, you're saying things not consciously. So that being said, my porch is a what I would call the kind of medical reports on and this is the I try to cooperate to his coochie or the supervisee to identify different hypothesis, all possible hypothesis because I don't know And how is the general manager is talking about, I don't know this person, I have no idea but but I try to identify what could be the cause of seeing going on without the hypothesis. So it's I work like a researcher in, in physics, just try to identify the different possibilities and work on each of them. That's that's the approach. I try to be as not all as I can. No judgement analysis.

And I absolutely love this approach. And I think I, I believe that I've worked in a similar perspective, as a final, provocative question what I have. And I don't want you to think that I'm against the systemic approach, because I think that's very, very valuable. And they've learned a lot of politics. And, you know, part of those were from your installation is that isn't the systemic approach, bringing in? Couldn't the systemic approach give an idea for the coachee to think more externally, and to not identify their own weaknesses, or their own responsibility? So could only be a boost to take responsibility away from the client?

What's the clinic example? The request of the coaches helped me to reduce my workload, I work too much. So okay, so what is the objective? The objective is to leave my office earlier. Okay, let's set the indicator. That what time do you leave currently? Nine o'clock at night? And when do you want, I'd like to have dinner with my family. So I want to leave at seven o'clock maximum. So the coaching mission is all set, request objectives, indicators, to then I can start to track in my head, there is a kind of, you know, like, in computers, when you have, how do you call that when you have different possibilities and

22:30

scenarios?

So I say, Well, my hypothesis is that Isaiah, you don't have to say no to your birth, is you don't know how to push, what is the responsibility of your peers, to them. As you you don't know, your work is not well organized. Or you don't delegate enough, you have always some fancy hypothesis, like, in fact, you don't want to go back home early because they are

23:09

not a good thing. Yes. Yeah.

I mean, I try to work with the coachee earlier than supervisee were possible hypothesis and then look at in what he says or she says, What are the factual elements that I can use to either support one of the hypotheses or reject them as a hypothesis? So, kind of work like that.

And I do hear that the responsibility stays with the medical chain in this case in

that case, but then we can look at the other layer of the onion which is to see what in your environment is causing the overload could be mean says the the, the processors used in this company, could be I mentioned that that is of you know, I tell you, I mean, differently yours, the person, the relationship to the system. So take that quietly, one layer after the other.

And it's, it's absolutely why. So I was asking, this isn't the whole idea of where do we put the responsibilities and interesting thing for me, they like the the whole concept of boundaries. And just a few minutes ago, use the coaching of Team of Teams is competing with organizational development. That was the moment when I had no idea. Okay, boundaries is an interesting thing in the profession. And now with systemic coaching, only boundaries are an interesting thing in how do I engage with the same Go clients? Do I focus on just them? Or how big is the environment that I'm considering when I'm in a coaching process with them? That's where my thinking is about boundaries and responsibility.

When I discuss that, of course, there are questions in the room, like, word, it's very monotone, it's not very quick change, how the emotion is used in that. And of course, I mean, I feel good detectors for feelings of the other person. I mean, I have some petty I also some, what's called, there is another process, which is called their way of thinking, maybe you have heard about that. Still, we have fantasies, yes, discuss that with my supervisor, and use some tools to measure that I have a Nixon theory of mind, I have a moderate on petty, I have, I can detect my feeling and put a name of them to directly use the emotional material in a rational way. So for instance, if they feel bored, doing the coaching, I know that some kind of feeling bored is this is a characteristic definition is a sign that the other person is depressed. You see what I mean? I have worked with my supervisor to identify some specific feelings, which are giving me indication about the personality, also internal state of the other person.

I love anything that's extremely useful as a sharp pencil, or stencil or other setup.

So when I feel the involvement is something which is the new penance, the next practitioner, but instead it's given me I mean, if I feel but if I'm born, then I think I work with you might be depressed. And then I immediately excited, I feel that I tried to work that possibility.

I really like that. And what is really important for me to hear. Now, this is my judgment that in all the things you were saying, the whole researcher approach is coming back, as you weren't. So for me, you are talking about signals, hypothesis interpretations. What I like is that the the whole research or research approach can be so easily applied to the, to the idea of coaching, or the idea of of supportive conversation. And how I would like to move on, although we could stay here and I'm interested in all these technologies is that I know that you are really into supervision. And you have mentioned it a number of times that we're working with supervisees. And I'm curious, what drove you to supervision. So how come that supervision is such a strong leg or a strong arm of your professional practice.

In fact, when I became a coach, I mean, due to my background, I mean, before being doctor in clinical psychology, I was master of clinical psychology, even I had two masters. And so in the university, I have a reputation. When I became a coach was called by University, which was creating a coaching class or a coaching school. I said yes, in that coaching school, it was 2004 they were in a need for supervisors or trainees and then I became supervisor of the trainees of that school. Before being a supervisor, I had no idea of what participator vision in fact, learning by doing by learning by doing, but at that time, you know, in 2000, firming, the knowledge about supervision in France with minimum ordering that Romaine Of course there was supervision of psychoanalysis, there was division in production or analysis, things like that, but it was not. I was not satisfied with that. That I am also an international person. So I saw that in UK, they had a lot of ideas about supervision and coaching, though I went there, and the ideas built my own supervision process from what the what the Brits were doing. And in 2006 I don't know if you remember all the professional bodies in UK, they had the UK roundtable which was called Look, I mean, in fact, the time to define what is good supervision,

I was just at the beginning of my, my coaching activities back those times I, I think I remember that it may be just self grandiosity

it's dangerous, so but it was in 2006. So ICF, UK on the MCC UK AOCs. And all these went in the same home to discuss that. And what they created was the first supervision competence framework that was created by your community. As a matter of fact, TMCC adopted to talk to Liz Lewis, she's very she was part of that meeting. And she's, it was her pushing that competency framework to be used by EMC. And so once there was a competency framework, immediately, everything was clear, you know, I mean, because the competency framework was describing in detail what to do, where to, etc, so supervision. And at that time, it was also when the coaching competency framework was elaborated. In fact, I was pastor for that game. I think it was 2007 I was real supervisor on I mean, using some methodologies, which have been discussed with the community of high level professionals. Because, you know, I, I like to be secure in theory and practice. I felt secure, because theory was established, and the practice, but I was alone. I mean, I was alone in my country. And then it was 2011, Oxford Brookes University organized the first international conference of supervisors, I became a member of a type in found in found guilty. Yeah, from a people and I was, I need to as a sponsor, many, you know, books for books at the time was not in the current location, which is very nice. It was really the end of the world, you know, in OSI, it was very difficult to reach the place, I had to take a plane and the time and then a bus. And then on the compass, I had to walk and I was lost during that. Meeting. And when I discovered the place, I mean, there was that time, and there were about 80 people, you know, 70 people in the room. And we did your roundtable, I was counting 60 people, there was 40, we're holding a doctorate. So all where our professor at university, I mean, it was a nice place, a nice place to be me, I discovered the type of supervisor, all of them were high level or curiosity. And I felt good in that communities. And so it was

it when you said it was a bit hard to wrenching for me to hear that you said that you were alone in your country. And, and what I know of you, and what I really admire in you is that you really drove development of supervision in France, and not just in France, but internationally. That's an activity that they really admire in your professional career. And you what I'm interested in, is that you said you felt safe when theory was established, and then practice could just go on. And I'm interested in your activities around the research of supervision, because I know that you are doing a number of things to develop the field of supervision. So can you tell us a few things about your research or development activities around the topic of supervision to what's going on around you? What is the what are the fields that you see to be interesting in the topic or around the topics of supervision? I'm just curious about your instance here.

What in the in fact, I mean, there is something which is that my business partner with last lemme is the extremely clever person, a very creative. You see, I'm rational, but she's put, she's extremely creative as a lot of ideas. We in fact, need tools and we're so engaged in some research, about supervision. I mean, very, very quickly, we start to engage in research on supervision. Most of papers and chapters and also conferences, were in fact co designed with laws, which, by the way, got the emcc supervision at weld in 2017. She was just wanted to have it. And I got it on me in 2019. So you see, she was having the community up advisors was considering at that time that she was really the head of all that when I'm just the shadow half of loss. Now, when I say I was alone, I was not alone. I mean, we were two, and we were trying to build at that time, it was only in 2010. We co designed the training that we are still earning supervision training. So it's a cooperation. In fact, you have to think that in terms of histone cooperation, ourselves and just Michelle has initiated me she is extremely creative with Michelle better in doing Barisan.

Every course development needs teams. So we need both the creatives, we need the masterminds, we need the people who can put these things into practice. I like to consider myself more as a creative person really as an execution. So by execution or may not be the good work here. So the person who who does the work in making bringing ideas to life. So that's not always me. And what was there? So we starting the question, do you have a favorite book chapter or paper? That was that is really close to your heart that you have returned? I'm just curious, what are the favorite pieces of research or outcomes or findings that you are proud of? Or that you like to remember, I

think that one was about we published a paper titled is who is the supervisor? What we did at the time was to try to assess the it was conducted as a result, we Rojas had an idea that the supervisor has no qualities by becoming a supervisor than the coach. We didn't study starting from Saturday purchases, was we say, well, if this is true, it should. It should appear in an analysis of ego defenses. So we selected a tool to measure ego defenses. We selected a population of good shows a population of supervisors which sector to population, we're okay, you know, with the demo segment of the test, which says that we represent a Goshen city population. And we measure the ego defense tools that we use. I don't remember which one was differencing positive differences, negative differences. And the outcome was in fact it was not at the purchases was not too positive differences were almost the same between butchers and supervisor was that supervisor have less negative defenses?

Can you give us an example on what a negative defenses so just we can have a more specific dress prominence,

projection from the put on, since the exact time

you belief of why I'm interested to hear this Arab psychologist by background. I think the big aware for our own differences, how we are filtering the information around us, or how we are maintaining your own personality around integrity. I think that's one of our core functions. A very important thing in our relationships. And when we are working with relationships, that's something you cannot be unaware of. Interestingly, I don't hear this topic to be dealt with frequently. For example, in coach trainings, start with differences. Whatever the reason is that it's pretty on the boundaries of psychology and coaching somebody in coaching psychology, but I think it would be an important thing to raise more Stanford. Thank you for sharing this. The story

you told the paper was published by the MCC, the big blue the minutes of the symposium comes, but I can send you the paper. I mean, it was it had a big success, I present that we presented it in Nashville, where our people were stunned.

What do you think? Can we share that article publicly, without ever showing

I mean, it's published and so on, belongs to the world. In the good old days, Irina was very tough with all that. But now, I mean, nobody reminded that there was sort of things I mean, Alison Mitchell, who is the new executive for research,

how do you see the next steps in researching and in developing supervision? So how do you see this field what is what should be coming next?

Well, what they have seen during the past four years, because in now I'm doing mostly supervision. So my interest is in now in supervision, there is a new, something new on the market, which is that if toner created in the beginning of 2016, dated the first network of supervisors. In fact, this was a great idea and syncs. Now in this community, one of the first discussions that we have, there is not a lot of research and supervision. You know, there are monthly webinars. One of the objectives was to share research. But there was almost nothing. Even the idea to because now, the population of the network is about 300. Supervisors. So who is interested in a search? And who wants to try to manage that 50 About 50, supervisors eyes, the hunt, and I was in charge of trying to organize that population. What we've done was to I mean, when I say we, because was in parallel with another person from the university, I don't want to build a name, I'm sorry. And so what first thing we've seen that the 50 people were showing extremely good will. But where we're really beginners in research, they were anxious to do some things. We have organized them into crystals on some questions. There was a group working on group supervision, there was a group on supervision on supervision, then there was a group on impact of supervision of supervision. So I still belong to the group on supervision of supervision, who is dying. And I followed very closely, the group on impact of supervision, which is really the subject to be investigated, investigated in supervision and reception supervision experience, is a question in the impact of supervision is that we have some ideas about the impact of supervision on the supervisee. But we have no idea of the impact of supervision on the good scene, and organization.

How does this extra layer of of the interventions go through the system?

Exactly. And in 2016, Jor, el DiGirolamo, who is the son in doing research in ICF? will know in one year,

44:05

I had a similar conversation with him. Yeah,

he published the quite well known study on research on supervision. And the last sentence in the conclusion was that there is no proof of the positive impact of supervision on the on the coachee and the organization. And therefore, we ACF should not go will or anybody else. Couldn't invest too much in supervision or document, there was a sentence, it's got something like that. So with a number of supervisors, we decided to try to work on that. But in fact, it's very difficult to find a valid methodology for that question.

Here because then, as I get it, too many of you levers that we will need to monitor and we will need to assess exactly the effects are so complicated or could be so complicated

that exactly that. So we are still in front of problem just to assess the impact of supervision on the coachee not only as a coach see, but on the coach's organization. I have I mean, of course, there was a lot of work. I mean, there is some work on that. And what we have identified is that when this system is backwards system, when the system is I mean, the organization is in an unstable state, then maybe supervision could have a big impact. It's the story of the butterfly. In I don't know where it is taking the butterfly effect. Some too we have seen that in some cases, and there is a butterfly effect when the organism is unstable,

would be the whole expression of an unstable organization. I think that is that itself would be worthy of a conversation, when and how would you assess or would say that an organization is unstable, because even inside that there could be so many variables or so many.

It's so stable when it's about to have a sudden, big change, which is quite difficult to assess. But so I have some some situations where I saw that, for instance, I had a situation where I was supervising the coach who was coaching, a member of the executive committee of a big company, a new member of the executive committee. And they were the coach. And these executives, they were discussing the fact that in this company's silos were maximum, I mean, there was absolutely no communication between the business units on the coach was quite a difficulties with that coaching. So what I discussed with the coach was when it was an idea which came in the conversation is way down the the executive of business, you need a invite the executive of business unit to to be part of his own executive meeting, because there was an executive meeting at the top and each one of the business unit, because it was a huge big company to size 200,000 people. So we had that discussion in the supervision. The coach had the discussion with the coachee. And the idea was applied in the company. And within six months, the complete management system of this company changed because it had Clemen juice effects.

You can imagine that and so that's a good example of a sudden change happening, we will do our best call it small intervention.

Because in that company doing that they realized that there was absolutely no communication. The especially the CFO who was invited to the executive committee of operations, the CFO, which was a guy in the company since for a guy in the company for 25 years, he discovered that he had absolutely no idea of the problem of the operations.

49:31

So neater than never. Yeah.

And so the CFO found that the idea was super on the genuineness of an invitation of executive mutual invitations were established. And so this is an example of the butterfly effect and which could be seen as really a butterfly effect, because I don't know if this is

Because of small intervention that created big change, and I think that that's really a good example. And you, we came here by the effect of, of supervision on the on the coaches. And what you mentioned is that there could be a significant and an observable effect when the organization is an unstable position. So when it is facing such a butterfly effect, so they are just developing in a short term. This is where, where we were, what I'm would be keenly interested in around the system, what are the potential methods that you are using or you are considering to, to examine this supervision, Kochi effect. So when we when there are a number of layers in the intervention, research perspective,

we've tried to create methodologies, especially, especially, I mean, Damien gold values interested in that. But all that needs some work. And the problem is to find people who have time to work, we are facing a resource problem here, that there is immediately a resource problem. We are in front of the wall of voice resources, which we cannot, and we are stuck because there is not enough motivation.

And let's assume that this whole conversation is getting out to the people to the public, and lots of people will listen to it. Hello, dear listeners. So how could the community getting to this? Could we somehow help in solving this issue? Well, sometimes

I mentioned this issue when I write books or paper. So when I'm standing up in front of the community, conferences or webinars, but it doesn't click.

I know that there are lots of practitioners out there who have an interest in research who would like to base their interventions and their practice on research things on proven materials. But what I'm hearing from some of them is that they don't know how to engage, retreat search, how to be involved in research,

beginners in research,

and my question is, What's your suggestion for those beginners in research for these enthusiastic and energetic

trying to find a group of PhD doctorate level supervisors and Baeza ways? There are not a lot of supervisors who are at doctorate level who are interested in that question, that issue that within the population, the worldwide population of supervisors, which is probably on 500 to 1000. We don't have enough people holding it at times. And now, some hold the doctor if they're interested in because of topics, they already have their own bone with, which is.

So what you are saying is that the research field around supervision, it is fragmented as well, because there are few people who will be able to do proper research. But there are lots of other topics out there. I mean, bones with meat on it.

There is a lot of topics. But with with all these topics don't have the same strategic implications, but I think they don't know, struck down. But I mean, the number of topics is huge. When the I mean, we don't know a lot about supervision of butchers in fact,

and final question, I frequently say final question, and then I keep asking otherwise, is it that's my bad habit. As an additional question, if you would, if you would like to recommend a book reading for people who are interested in, in what we already know about supervision or what we already know about the working of supervision, then what would be your recommendation?

The book published by the American good supervision network. It was published last year, I think, yeah. Late last year, so this is and there are there is also books a book published by and see years ago, which is not very in depth, in my opinion. So you can get that also. As a matter of fact, I mean, there was a lot of research on supervision of psychotherapy does a reasonable thing of well, but they are not interested in the effects beyond the supervising. So strange but, you know, they have worked a lot on the supervisor supervisee relationship, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but, but it's like, there is a kind of bummed out is that they don't, they're not cost very often. So, we don't, we don't find a lot of help from the reservoir of research done in psychotherapy, unfortunately.

And let me close with with a more personal question added Verdun any outcomes? Or? Yeah, let's just call them outcomes. So whether any outcomes in the research of supervision that have surprised you, that you have said it, oh, I wouldn't have thought of that or how interesting let's go even further. So, were there any surprising findings, when you were engaged, when as you are engaged with the research of supervision

not a lot of difficulties, to find your way some papers on supervision of supervision published in Germany. I mean, these were words interesting, but I can't remember the titles, I mean, a lot of work was done on recursion of supervision by German speaking countries in years 2009 2000 2007 to 2009. And there is a guy called I mean, there is a guy who assemble all that into one paper about total of 120 papers and it was interesting, I liked that kind of paper, because you can find all you need

the single goal goal for this publication, and we will try to locate it at the next I can send

you the paper I got that somewhere in my mess. But now, I think that the resource on supervision and I've seen things very exciting that you you know researchers look at some tiny piece

when when you said that you when you just said is primarily talked about the engineering work or the work of a mechanic that research and the related development is sometimes these the nitty gritty work. So, when you find the single screw that is not working, and you were just dealing with that or you are just making a tiny adjustments here or there. And although the big machine keeps on going, you will need to find the small pieces that can make it work in an even better fashion. So

but you have questions and questions about is the is there a magic way to do what we do is Claus and and basically everything I say about floss and what I'm going to say about what we do must be kept since quite important to let what is which means we are working as a team which terms of research. So, what I do what I try my modest contribution to the whole thing, and this is together with my business partner of last level is that we in our supervision training, we are asking the trainees to do a little bit of research. Every cohort has a subject and they can take as a sim and they can take the subject they are going to investigate on that. And we have we have created we have established ourself as publishers real publishers, and we publish the work of twins. So this is the first one of the books, the Croft was knocking on ASICs the questions was that now find the piece of ASICs which is still unexplored. And we are going to publish you, this is done. So the idea is to, to push them in the direction of research gives them

making research a part of the training program. Exactly. And I think that's an important idea, you know, for the long term of the offer profession. I, I believe that we need researcher practitioners who, at least can have this perspective of working with hypothesis with their clients. And hopefully they can contribute to, to the whole profession by considering hypotheses about their work, either in supervision or either in a, let's call it in a research setting when they are collecting or considering data or observations. And I think that's an important thing. I just had my previous conversation with Bob Garvey, and he said that there is no profession without research. So I fully agree with him. And I would like to thank you for joining me in this conversation today. I wish we can continue this because I know that your contribution for the research and thus the development of the supervision profession is very strong. And I would be honored to hear more about all the regulatory so thank you very much.

Okay, thanks for this opportunity. And have a nice day. And good research work. Thank you very much.

Thank you for listening to one coaching podcast where I have curious conversations with virginal coaches and researchers. If you enjoyed this episode, make sure to rate us and subscribe. I also invite you to visit Zoltan she guides.com where you can access more resources regarding the coaching industry very well.