Organisational coaching is a well-established and rapidly growing human development practice that can be beneficial to individuals and their organisations (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018; Jones, Woods, & Guillaume, 2016; Theeboom, Beersma, & Van Vianen, 2014). Organisational coaching involves structured, focused interaction and the use of appropriate strategies, tools and techniques to promote desirable and sustainable change for the benefit of the coachee and other stakeholders, including the sponsoring organisation (Bachkirova, Cox, & Clutterbuck, 2014, p. 1). Some of the benefits of organisational coaching include improved performance and skills, well-being, goal-directed self-regulation, improved work–life balance, psychological and social competencies, self-awareness and assertiveness, adapting to change more effectively, helping to set and achieve goals, role clarity and changing behaviours (Blackman, Moscardo, & Gray, 2016; Theeboom et al., 2014).

When coaches apply the core coaching competencies correctly, they add value to the well-being and success of their clients and their organisations. The rapid development of coaching comes with great responsibility and simultaneously a certain degree of notoriety, because coaching, unlike other similar professions (such as medicine, nursing, social work or counselling and psychotherapy), continues to remain unregulated, despite its growing popularity (Brennan & Wildflower, 2010). As a result, coaches sometimes find themselves in situations that are ethically challenging. There are ethical frameworks available to help guide coaches through these challenges. However, these frameworks fail to offer practical guidance (Bond, 2000). Because of the confidential nature of coaching interventions, coaches may therefore feel isolated and unsure of how to handle ethical dilemmas appropriately, and they need external support.

Coaching supervision plays an increasing role in supporting and developing professional standards for coaches (Passmore, 2011; Tkach & DiGirolamo, 2020). Coaching supervision is a process to support the efficacy of the coaching practice through reflection, evaluation, sharing of skills and ensuring the continuous growth of the coach (Bachkirova, Stevens, & Willis, 2005; Passmore & McGoldrick, 2020). Coaching supervision has grown significantly in recent years and is now an established practice, supported and encouraged by most professional coaching bodies (Bachkirova, Jackson, Henning, & Moral, 2020). Supervision allows the coach to mirror their coaching practice in the company of a knowledgeable supervisor and stimulates continuous learning and development of the coach (Bluckert, 2005). Supervision also provides the coach with specialised support that contributes to their growth and the efficacy of their practice (Bachkirova et al., 2005). Such development is achieved through interactive reflection, interpretive evaluation and sharing of expertise (Lucas, 2020). Supervision provides an ideal platform where a coach can reflect on ethical dilemmas they face in practice. However, despite the importance of supervision, there is currently no single agreed-upon model of coaching supervision, and there is little research available on the praxis of supervision and its efficacy (Joseph, 2016), especially regarding dealing with ethical dilemmas. The question this research therefore asked was: how does supervision contribute to organisational coaches’ ethical practice?

Understanding the role of supervision in helping coaches deal with ethical dilemmas is important not only to supervisors and coaches but also to organisations who employ coaches. Organisations are not privy to the details of the coaching conversations because of confidentiality. Therefore, knowing that coaches have a platform to discuss and resolve ethical challenges is of significant importance to organisational sponsors.

Ethics is defined as a branch of philosophy dealing with values that relate to human conduct concerning the rightness or wrongness of specific actions (Chandler & Plano, 1988). Rightness refers to what ought to be or what is acceptable, and wrongness to what ought not to be or what is unacceptable to a particular society or group (Kirkpatrick, 1987). Ethics is concerned not only with distinguishing right from wrong and good from bad but also with the commitment to do what is right or acceptable (Chapman, 1993). People have the capacity, knowledge and tools to be ethical and distinguish between right and wrong. However, whether or not a person will act morally depends on their principles, values and experience (De Jong, 2006; Passmore, 2009; Weiner, 2004).

Translated to the world of coaching, these definitions can be interpreted to mean that ethics in coaching promotes coaching practitioners’ acceptable behaviour and the right actions in performing entrusted duties. A coach practitioner would be deemed ethical if he or she portrays acceptable conduct (Stout-Rostron, 2012).

To guide coaches in terms of ethics, ethical codes of conduct are provided by most of the coaching associations and are similar but by no means identical in content (ICF-International Coach Federation, 2016). The European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) (as cited in Gray, 2011), for example, requires that coaches ensure that their level of competence is sufficient to meet the needs of a client, to understand and identify potential conflicts of interest and boundary issues and to maintain confidentiality and high standards of work. The EMCC-European Mentoring and Coaching Council (2009) emphasises that coaches must avoid conflict of interest and ensure proper contracting with their clients and sponsor. The ethics code of the Association for Coaching (2010) highlights the need for coaches to refer clients to experts either for coaching, psychotherapy or other specialist services in cases where their skills prove inadequate (Gray, 2011). The ICF is committed to high ethical standards for coaches (Gray, 2011). The purpose of the ICF Code of Ethics is to promote professional and ethical coaching practices and to raise the awareness of people outside the profession about the integrity, commitment and ethical conduct of ICF members and ICF credentialed coaches (ICF-International Coach Federation, 2019). The non-statutory professional body for Coaches and Mentors of South Africa (COMENSA) has aimed to set ethical standards for coaching and mentoring in South Africa. The Code of Ethics and Conduct outlines values, standards and fundamental principles with which members of COMENSA agree, and by which they may be measured, supervised or assessed (COMENSA-Coaches and Mentors of South Africa, 2015). It is necessary for coaching bodies to consider the capacity of various codes to complement each other, the likelihood of conflict between the codes and processes to resolve such issues (Gray, 2007).

Codes of ethics are a catalyst for moral thinking and are useful in providing means of discipline and quality control (Passmore, 2011). Nevertheless, they cannot replace the individual ethical decisions that coaching practitioners need to make (Bailey & Schwartzberg, 1995). Ethical codes are supportive systems to expand the coaches’ knowledge; however, they have gaps because they cannot address the dilemmas faced by coach practitioners in diverse situations and reflect on one perspective only, namely that of professional bodies on ethics (Turner & Passmore, 2018). It is important to note that no unified code of ethics has been able to ease the challenges of making ethical decisions, and for this reason, scholars and practitioners have proposed the development of ethical decision-making frameworks as an option for making ethical decisions (Duffy & Passmore, 2010; Passmore & Mortimer, 2011). De Jong (2006) notes that codes of ethics are useful as basic guidelines for ethical coaching practice, yet they do not provide answers as to how coaches should respond to those dilemmas. Neither do codes of ethics instil the power of judgement necessary to develop a sense of professional ethical responsibility in coaches (De Jong, 2006; Weiner, 2004).

Clearly, coaches need mechanisms to deal with ethical challenges. One suggestion is that they should build their awareness of ethical dimensions and responsibilities in preparation for difficult situations (Anderson & Williams, 2006). The coach practitioners must explore and reflect on their moral standards and how they influence their coaching competence. However, ethics cannot be applied by just reading a book (Rossiter, Walsh-Bowers, & Prilleltensky, 1996). Hence, discussions with fellow professionals are crucial and are to be held in a non-judgemental setting (Rossiter et al., 1996). Supervision provides such a space and could therefore potentially play a role in helping coaches deal with ethical dilemmas. In fact, coaching supervision is emphasised as beneficial because it develops new approaches and learning (SGCP-Special Group in Coaching Psychology, 2007). However, it is unclear to what extent supervision is used to deal with ethical issues and the manner in which it is carried out.

Ethical dilemmas in coaching develop under a variety of circumstances where coaches are faced with situations in which sound ethical decisions are required (Turner & Passmore, 2018). Various researchers have identified and classified typical ethical dilemmas. Pomerantz and Eiting (2007) found that common ethical dilemmas faced by coaches relate to serving multiple clients, confidentiality, breach of contract and overstepping boundaries (e.g. acting as a psychologist). Passmore and Mortimer (2011) found ethical challenges relating to issues with the coachee, issues with the coach, confidentiality and boundary management issues and challenges stemming from the multiple-role relationship nature of coaching in organisations.

Several strategies are suggested for coaches to manage ethical dilemmas. A fundamental strategy is the ongoing review of the coaching contract (Bennett, 2008). A coach may, for example, find it difficult to terminate a coaching contract when the situation so requires. To address this challenge, the coach must ensure that there is a clear agreement that defines the services (Passmore & Mortimer, 2011).

The challenges related to the multiple-role relationship nature of coaching stem from working with many clients in the same organisation, meaning that a coach must ensure that confidentiality is upheld at all times (Passmore & Mortimer, 2011). Success in navigating multiple-role relationships depends on full disclosure of any conflict of interest; clearly defined roles, responsibilities and boundaries; a client-focused approach; reflective practice; and supervision (Zur & Anderson, 2006). Here again, the coaching contract must spell out the rules of behaviour of the coach–coachee relationship to safeguard against crossing certain boundaries (Passmore & Mortimer, 2011). The importance of the client’s autonomy and the boundary responsibility of managing oneself within this relationship is emphasised by Bond (2015).

The research regarding ethical decision-making is under-developed, especially in the area of coaching as an intervention (Duffy & Passmore, 2010). An ACTION decision-making framework was developed to assist individual coaches in addressing the limitations of ethical codes of practice (Passmore, 2009). The model consists of six stages of ethical decision-making and seeks to offer a flexible and nonlinear approach to the resolution of dilemmas (Passmore, 2009). The six stages are as follows: awareness; classify; time for reflection, support and advice; initiate; option evaluation; novate. However, Passmore (2009) cautioned that the ACTION model is not conclusive and encouraged others to reflect on it through research to enhance both the understanding of the dilemmas and ethical challenges faced by coaches and to build comprehensive models to guide coaches in resolving ethical problems.

In conclusion, dealing with ethical issues can be complex, and inexperienced coaches can become overwhelmed with the decision-making process (COMENSA-Coaches and Mentors of South Africa, 2015). Research by Turner and Passmore (2018) on how coaching supervisors handle ethical dilemmas in practice highlighted gaps in the practice, which may have negative effects on the profession and its status: ‘the findings suggest a lack of clarity and understanding around ethical decision-making and a lack of consistency in the possible implementation of codes’ (p. 139). They emphasise the complexity of ethics in organisational coaching and state that there is often not a simple case of right or wrong. Clearly, coaches need help with managing ethical dilemmas, and supervision provides a potential mechanism in this regard.

This section presents the findings of the research study that explored the contribution of coaching supervision to the development of ethical coaching practice from the perspective of supervisors. The findings are grouped into two main themes and six subthemes, as illustrated in Table 2, and presented in detail below.

This research investigated the role that supervision plays in developing coaches’ ethical coaching practice. The findings reveal firstly which ethical dilemmas coaches bring to supervision and secondly the strategies supervisors employ to assist coaches.

In this study, the ethical dilemmas that coaches brought to supervisors were in line with what was observed by other coaching ethics researchers. Confidentiality and contracting as well as the complex multiparty relationships were the primary causes of ethical challenges, as also observed by Pomerantz and Eiting (2007) and Passmore and Mortimer (2011). The complexities of organisational coaching contracting is well known especially in terms of creating and maintaining alignment between the coach, the coachee and the sponsoring organisation (Van Coller-Peter & Burger, 2019). It seems that this complex landscape with potentially competing objectives provides fertile ground for ethical challenges, because situations arise where appropriate decisions are not always straightforward. Problems occur because of many alternatives or approaches that could be taken to resolve the dilemmas. It was clear that the responsibility is upon the coach to apply the correct framework or guidelines to make an ethical decision. In fact, strong contracting can help coaches decide whether they are in fact the right coach for the situation (Turner & Passmore, 2019).

Findings show that supervision provides coaches with an opportunity to debrief and develop their capacity to handle ethical dilemmas. The supervisors noted that strategies and tools are key in dealing with dilemmas. They felt that a multipronged approach is required to resolve dilemmas successfully. The research by Turner and Passmore (2018) highlighted gaps in supervision and ethical practice, suggesting that there is not sufficient clarity and understanding around ethical decision-making and observing ‘a lack of consistency in the possible implementation of codes’ (Turner & Passmore, 2018, p. 139). The findings of the present study, however, suggest that there is a fairly mature awareness and use of standard ethical frameworks by supervisors during supervision. Supervisors agree with the notion that strategies and tools provide resources and show a clear way forward to coaches in working with their clients. Thus, the coaches’ capabilities in resolving dilemmas are strengthened. Supervisors rely on models such as the ACTION decision-making framework (Passmore, 2009), the seven-eyed process model of supervision (Hawkins & Smith, 2006) and the ICF standards and guidelines in coaching (ICF-International Coach Federation, 2019) to assist coaches in dealing with dilemmas. The use of these frameworks points to a possible maturing of the level of training supervisors undergo. In addition to ethical frameworks, supervisors could also use ethical case studies to help sensitise coaches to potential ethical dilemmas and explain how to deal with them (Turner & Passmore, 2019). Using these approaches could help develop ethical maturity by developing confidence in ethical understanding (Turner & Passmore, 2018).

The present study showed that supervision provides a reflective container to develop coach competencies and assist with continuous professional development and action learning for the coach practitioner (Hawkins & Smith, 2013). This satisfies the need for coaches to continually reflect on their moral standards in a practical, not just theoretical, manner (Anderson & Williams, 2006). It is therefore important that the supervisor and coach relationship is on firm footing. This can be achieved through open conversations, mutual trust, being open to emerging truths, intense listening and remaining flexible (De Vries, 2019). Ultimately, ethical mastery rests on the need for coaches to understand themselves (Jackson & Bachkirova, 2019). Supervisors are in a primary position to help facilitate this self-awareness and hence ethical mastery in coaches.

The study found that the competence of the coach has an impact on the ability to deal with ethical dilemmas. Supervisors expressed their concerns regarding the training of coaches and their competence in dealing with ethical dilemmas. This serves as a wake-up call to coaching training providers to ensure a firm focus on ethics during new coach training (Diller, Passmore, Brown, Greif, & Jonas, 2020). Coaching bodies such as ICF, COMENSA and EMCC also play a role in continued development of coaching ethical practice by ensuring that sufficient continuous development opportunities are made available to coaches and supervisors.

This study has several practical implications for supervisors, coaches, coach training providers, coaching regulatory bodies and organisations that use coaching services. Supervisors should familiarise themselves with practical ethical frameworks to help their clients (coaches) deal with ethical dilemmas. Supervisors should also be aware of the potential ethical dilemmas coaches could face and facilitate a reflective discussion on this with their clients. Coaches should ensure that they continue to stay alert for the possibility of becoming embroiled in an ethical dilemma and mitigate risks through contracting and seeking out the assistance of qualified supervisors. Coaching schools should ensure that adequate focus is placed on training coaches to avoid, identify and deal with ethical challenges. Coaching regulatory bodies should continue to offer continuous development opportunities to both supervisors and coaches on ethical coaching practice. Finally, organisations that purchase coaching services should insist that coaches are enrolled for supervision.

The study has a number of limitations and identifies areas for future research. A limitation is that data were only collected from supervisors. Additional perspectives could enhance the understanding of how supervision interacts with coaching ethics; therefore, the insights and experiences of coaches on how supervision assists them with ethical practice should be included. The voices of coaching bodies such as ICF, COMENSA and EMCC should also be heard in terms of how the training of coaching supervisors prepares them for assisting coaches with ethical dilemmas. A future study could include all these perspectives in a triangulation of data sources to further enhance our understanding of the role of supervision in promoting ethical coaching practice.