Many people assume that face-to-face coaching must be better than virtual coaching (by telephone coaching, Skype or Zoom) and, whilst we would probably all prefer to meet a real human the first time, recent advances in technology and the lack of time to meet are shifting that balance.
A research study* featured in a psychology journal showed that coaching at a distance is just as effective as face-to-face, and that no significant differences were found in creating a working alliance.
Key features of virtual coaching supervision are that it can be set at a time to suit both parties, aids the quality of listening for both parties (no visual distractions) and helps people feel really heard; this can lead to greater disclosure and insight if in the hands of a skilled and sensitive coach supervisor.
- Access to a pool of qualified coach supervisors by eliminating geographic constraints
- Affords shorter, more frequent just-in-time supervision sessions
- Laser-focused conversations due to shorter time periods – works well for driven individuals in speedy work cultures
- Sustains momentum quickly over time
- Creates a safe environment where the individual feel comfortable and can be honest and open with an independent ‘thinking partner’
- Convenient, flexible time-slots, especially when the client is travelling
- Time-effective, as the client can choose a time of day when they are most focused
- Cost-effective, as organisations do not incur travel costs and time; nor the opportunity cost of being away from their desk
- Models good practice in virtual working, which is particularly helpful for people working in virtual teams
Why not try it out for yourself?
To experience these benefits do contact one of the SuperVisionNow team to arrange a call. See our Contact Us page.
* Berry, R. M., Ashby, J. S., Gnilka, P. B., & Matheny, K. B. (2011). A comparison of face-to-face and distance coaching practices: Coaches’ perceptions of the role of working alliance in problem resolution. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 243–253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026735