Facilitated reflective practice for leadership and executive coaches who want to show up with more clarity, more range, and more confidence.
Start with a conversation →New to the idea of supervision? Read why the term doesn’t tell the whole story.
I have spent years as a leadership and executive coach, sitting with the same tensions and carrying the same questions that show up in your practice. That experience is the foundation of my work as a supervisor. I understand not just the theory of what you do, but the felt reality of it.
The space we create together is safe, reflective, and candid — a place where you can openly examine your work, the moments that go well, the ones that challenge you, and everything in between.
Originally from rural Maryland, I now call Washington, D.C. home. My wife and I have two grown daughters. I enjoy Baroque music, weekend nature hikes, tending my backyard apple tree, and watching dark comedies and spy thrillers to unwind during the week. I studied crops agronomy at the University of Maryland and spent summers working for John Deere, plowing fields, and maintaining hothouses. As a coach, I often joke, “I’m still planting seeds.”
Coaches engage in facilitated reflective practice for many reasons — a desire to be challenged, the weight of a client situation they can’t discuss with anyone else, or a sense that their growth as a practitioner has quietly stalled.
You may be noticing that the professional development offerings that once energized you no longer hold the same appeal — and that the coaching itself, while competently delivered, has begun to feel routine.
These are not signs of decline. They are signs that you have outgrown the container you are working in and may be ready for a deeper, revitalizing journey of development.
The need for that growth often announces itself as questions that follow you from one engagement to the next.
Sound familiar?
Supervision is the space designed to hold exactly these kinds of questions.
Whether you coach externally or internally within an organization has implications for what you bring to reflective-practice sessions, and I welcome supporting you in either case. I work with coaches across the globe and across every dimension of social identity — my practice is enriched by difference.
Supervision is not oversight. And it is also not just a comfortable conversation. It is a structured, confidential space for examination and introspection. Here, we look together at not just what you did in session, but who you were, what you carried in, and what you might not yet see. This discipline ensures that seasoned coaches avoid mistaking familiarity for advanced competence — and instead, continue to grow in ways that long experience alone cannot provide.
Each session is shaped by what you bring.
An ongoing relationship, not a one-time event.
I work with coaches across a range of budgets. The investment we agree on will honor both the value of the offer and your ability to pay. We discuss specifics during our initial conversation — no surprises.
If the word gives you pause, you are not alone. For many coaches, “supervision” carries connotations of hierarchy, oversight, and evaluation — a manager looking over your shoulder. That is not what this is.
The term was inherited from the clinical and therapeutic traditions where it originated — and where it accurately describes a senior practitioner overseeing a trainee's work. Coaching supervision is something different entirely.
Some have proposed alternatives: reflective practice (which I use), transformative conversations, or the playful reframing of the word as “super-vision” — an expanded way of seeing. Whatever you call it, the work itself is the same. It is a confidential, joint dialogue carried out in equal partnership. It is designed to help you reflect on your practice, develop your skills, and serve your clients, their organizations, and their communities more effectively.
Think of it not as being supervised, but as gaining a wider lens on your own work.
Supervision is the space where you can pause and ask the questions you cannot ask out loud in session: What about my client is triggering me? What am I not seeing? Where am I getting in my own way? Am I coaching in alignment with my philosophy of change? What do my coaching moves tell me about my own assumptions? This reflective stance is the foundation of ethical, effective coaching.
This is what distinguishes supervision from mentor coaching. Mentoring focuses on sharpening specific skills — often by observing or reviewing a recorded session. It measures your work against a set of competencies and answers the question: Am I coaching well enough? Supervision asks a different, deeper question: Who am I as a coach, and how is that shaping the work? It attends to the whole practitioner — your assumptions, your emotional responses, your ethical compass, and the systems you are part of. Where mentoring refines technique, supervision transforms the coach.
My practice draws on established supervision models — particularly Hawkins and Shohet’s Seven-Eyed Model, which examines a coaching case through multiple systemic perspectives, and Clutterbuck’s Seven Conversations, which surfaces the unspoken dialogues that often hold the key to understanding where a coaching relationship is stuck.
These frameworks — alongside the competency models published by EMCC and ICF for coaching supervision — provide a sound foundation that always centers the relationship between us.
Together we create a trusting space, and then we do courageous work within it. For seasoned coaches, the developmental edge rarely lies in technique — it lives in identity, power, and the unexamined habits we all bring to our engagements.
Our work will not always feel comfortable. If it did, it probably would not be reaching the places where meaningful growth waits.
Two ways to start — pick the one that fits where you are.
A no-cost way to experience the work
A 30-minute introductory call
My practice rests on graduate training in coaching (Georgetown University) and coaching supervision (Oxford Brookes University), extensive study of adult development theory, and years of first-hand coaching experience. Adult development is central to how I work — not just coaching techniques, but the practitioner’s capacity for meaning-making, tolerance for ambiguity, and ability to hold multiple perspectives at once.
I continue to coach individuals and teams across government, nonprofit, and private sectors — an active practice that keeps me attuned to the realities coaches face. I am currently working toward EMCC ESIA individual accreditation.
Supervision is not required for ICF credential applications, including MCC. That said, coaches pursuing advanced credentials may find that supervision strengthens what assessors are evaluating — the depth of presence, comfort with complexity, and seamless integration of competencies that distinguish MCC-level coaching.
Up to 10 hours of coaching supervision — from any qualified source — can be applied as Core Competency CCE credits toward renewal of ACC, PCC, and MCC credentials during each three-year cycle.
Referrals are ordinary in coaching, and ethically consequential. Five practical tests for the clean ask, plus a case that shows how five ethical problems can stack up the moment a referral fee enters the picture.
“Executive presence” can quietly turn coaching into fit-the-mold work. What discipline does the coach need to keep the work honest, and how supervision helps surface what may be seeping in.
When organizational coaching relationships overlap, a coach can end up holding information from a prior engagement that surfaces inside a current one. What can you ethically do with what you know?