Coaching As A Profession: Licensed? Registered? Chartered? Regulated?
By Mark Joyella
Is it important for coaching to be considered a profession?
Chris Baxter’s tired of hearing the word “coach” tossed around as a workplace cliche. “People wouldn’t say at work, ‘I’m going to sit down with my staff and do some psychotherapy,’” says Baxter. But bosses often boast about being good coaches, leading their team of employees, or sitting down with a mid-level manager to work with them on an issue.
Baxter argues the ease with which people toss around the term “coach” undermines coaching’s ability to truly become a profession in the eyes of the public. “They don’t perceive it as something that only qualified professionals do,” said Baxter, an ICF accredited business coach in the UK whose coaching business, GENI, is an acronym for “Good Enough Never Is.”
Baxter believes it’s imperative for coaches to separate themselves in the minds of the public‚ not just from bosses who motivate employees, but also from untrained business owners who market themselves as “coaches.”
Do you?
“They are undermining (coaching) as a profession because they have no professional accrediation or credentials whatsoever,” said Baxter. “And so whilst the term ‘coach’ is used in common language a great deal, it’s going to be very difficult to distinguish between professional coaching and having a one-to-one chat with somebody.”
What is the next step for coaching to be recognized as a profession?
The ICF has long maintained that professional coaching exists, and the ICF’s programs of standards and certification–along with membership in a body of “professional” coaches–is one path to being a pro.
Coach Dave Buck asks the provocative question, “How do you earn the right to coach?” Is the only answer for individual coaches to become certified?
Or is there a broader step yet to be taken by the field that could universally advance coaching status to a profession?
“There is a growing need for some sort of quality mark for coaches and coach training programs,” says Ton de Graaf, a WABC (Worldwide Association of Business Coaches) Chartered Business Coach who practices in the Netherlands.
“Building a profession means building and maintaining public trust,” says de Graaf. “This is achieved through self-regulatory activities such as creating a professional code of ethics, a well-defined set of professional standards, a body of knowledge, and a standard of training and credentialing.”
ICF and WABC offer those services, but de Graaf says few coaching clients–and far fewer members of the public at large–have ever heard of any coaching association. “Coach training programs and designations are flooding the market‚ the vast majority of which are not affiliated with any professional association‚ leading to market confusion about the quality, focus and nature of services the coaching industry offers.”
De Graaf and others believe the perception problem–lumping business coaches into the same group with dream coaches and dating coaches–presents a hurdle for coaching that, say, architects don’t have to deal with.
UCLA sociologist James Wilson wrote in his book Bureaucracy that a “professional” is someone who’s had specialized formal education and benefits from a “group-defined code of proper conduct.”
By that measure, many well-trained and fully certified coaches say they must concede coaching is a “field” and not yet a profession.
“The ICF has its code of ethics, and other coaching bodies have theirs, but an individual is still at liberty to call themselves coach without specialized formal education or an agreement to an accepted group defined code of proper conduct,” said Chris Baxter. “So the first problem that coaching has in becoming established as a profession is that the title ‘coach’ is not ‘owned’ by a professional body” in the way ‘dentist’ or even ‘accountant’ is.
Baxter believes it’s too late to take back sole possession of the word “coach,” given its long tradition of use in other contexts, most notably in sports. “It’s a term that the ‘coaching profession’ adopted/borrowed/stole,” said Baxter. “Therefore if coaching is to become recognized as a profession then it would appear that a new name is needed.”
Do you agree?
Ton de Graaf stakes his claim to the title “Chartered Coach,” the highest level of WABC accreditation offered through just one facility, the Professional Development Foundation at Middlesex University. Currently, the program has no candidates.
Baxter says in the UK, “chartered‚” carries a clear message to consumers and coaching clients, as the phrase is widely understood in the way “board certified” is understood in the US. “You don’t get that by popping off to a course for the weekend. It’s the culmination of years of study.”
In the UK, chartered status is governed by law, effectively closing the market to the amateur surveyor or therapist. Baxter argues a “gold standard” could do the same for coaching, “where basically if you’re not a chartered coach, you’re not really a ‘coach.’”
A charter obviously has no resonance to American consumers.
Would “Chartered Coach” find credibility worldwide? Or “Registered Coach?”
DeeAnna Merz Nagel is a licensed mental health counselor in New Jersey and founder of the Online Therapy Institute. She believes a bold path to professional coaching status would be a government license. “A license would say that along with education, there are certain rules and codes of ethics you must follow to be in the profession,” she said.
A license would govern who could add “coach,” to their title in specific situations. “People just decide, ‘oh, I’m a business coach,’” said Nagel. “Well how did you come to that? They say ‘well I have an MBA, I help people with business.’”
In order to make the profession what it needs to be, to take it up another notch, Nagel says, coaches should consider regulation. “Regulation is what does it in this culture.”
Are you willing to be government regulated?
Does being part of a profession mean enough to coaching that you’d be willing to endure state by state licensing and exposure to varying rules, regulations and licensing procedures? Is there a promising alternative?
“I certainly don’t want another profession to have to be mired in the complications of state-to-state regulation,” says Nagel. “Maybe coaches could be the profession that somehow wields a national license so that other professionals could follow. ‘Look, coaches did it, so why not therapists?’”
Where do we want coaching to go from here? Any coaches up for that kind of challenge?
Comment by Fran Dutton on 11 August 2009:
I agree pretty much with Dr. Carr’s viewpoint about “professionalization.” But for a different reason. I think that coaches concerned about credentials and standards are heading the wrong direction. Instead, they should be working on ways to take advantage of minimal or different standards, the variety of certifications, and multiple definitions of coaching.
Coaches whining about standards and needing credentials reminds me of the music industry complaining about all the free downloading. Instead of figuring out how to prosecute the downloaders, the industry should have been doing what Apple did when it created the iTunes music store. Their iTunes downloading system now outsells the entire music industry. They found a way to meet needs without hurting anyone…and actually benefiting millions.
This is the direction that coaches ought to be taking. Figure out how to make current reality work for you. I’ve done this with many of my own clients, and it was based on insights I turned into action by practicing certain principles associated with the concept of “free service.” I couldn’t have done it without the assistance of a coach…a coach who had no coach specific training, no credentials in coaching, didn’t belong to a coaching association, or sign an ethical pledge.
(Anyone who would like to learn more about how to benefit from the lack of standards, etc ought to read Chris Anderson’s new book: “Free: The Future of Radical Price”.
Comment by Rey Carr on 11 August 2009:
Back in the old days it was fairly easy to distinguish what was a profession. Medicine, the Law, and the Clergy pretty much filled the entire list. Today the word “professional” can be applied to many roles and often can mean simply someone who is really good at (and really dedicated to) what they do. This informal definition, however, is not good enough for academics or a standard dictionary. Although there is no consensus as to what constitutes a profession (and even dictionaries vary somewhat in their definitions), I have identified nine factors that are associated with the using the term “professional.” (All nine are listed on our site at http://www.peer.ca/coachorgs.html)
Coaching is not yet a profession. But does it even need to be? Is coaching being helped or hampered by the drive for “standards” and “credentials”? And focusing on a code of ethics may also be a waste of time and energy. Most of today’s financial felons came from MBA programs, services, or businesses that included a code of ethics.
Professionalization may actually interfere with the ability of potential clients to receive the coaching they need. Distinguishing between those with credentials and those within the social milieu without credentials may actually decrease the resourcefulness of our neighbourhoods and social groupings and reliance on the peer group for needed support and practical assistance.
Too few coaching associations (and coaches) are willing to identify and explore the downside to credentialing and standards. Too many coaches assume that since other disciplines have developed credentials, professional practice, and standards that this means they should develop parallel systems for coaching. What might be essential for ensuring quality practice in medicine or law or even psychology, for example, must have its equivalent for coaching.
Because thousands of coaching practitioners have paid a considerable amount of money to obtain their credentials; and because thousands have paid their dues to coaching associations, there are thousands of strong advocates for continuing these practices (as well as keeping the schools and associations financially viable). This can mostly be explained simply as an outcome of cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance), and not as a result of experience and wisdom.
What’s the downside to a client working with a coach that doesn’t provide the help the client wanted? Consumer protection laws are strong enough presently to deal with everything from outright fraud, to misleading practices, to “bait-and-switch,” to negligence and to false advertising.
Potential clients have multiple resources for finding the best coaches, including coach matching services, discussions with former (or current clients), complimentary introduction/orientation sessions, and other methods.
Clients continue to use the fit between coach experience the clients’ anticipated goals and desired results. If this doesn’t work out, it’s very easy for the client to move on to another coach. And unlike other “professions” this false start is unlikely to be either harmful or problematic. If anything, it may be beneficial as the client may be even be educational as it will sharpen his/her articulation of what he/she wants in terms of both process and results.
Comment by Julia Stewart on 11 August 2009:
Thanks for bringing up this topic, Mark. I too, yearn for credential requirements whenever I see “coaches” on Youtube, TV, on the web, or wherever, who are presenting themselves in a way that I find embarrassing. Then I remind myself how mediocrity and bureaucracy seep into a profession when it’s regulated and I’m grateful that we are not.
This is a subject that responsible coaches have struggled with for years, with seemingly no clean answers available. The IAC and the ICF were both founded in large part as attempts to address the need for professional standards and both already have codes of ethics that members must strive to adhere to. Neither seriously regulates, though.
In a globalized world, where international coaching businesses are the norm, state by state, or even country by country regulation is no longer adequate. And unless we come up with a new name for coaching, title regulation won’t work, because everyone thinks they already coach.
I tell new coaches this: If everyone is a coach now, including your potential clients’ teachers, managers, neighbors and cubical mates; and all of those people are coaching for free, then why would anyone hire you?
In my mind, the only legitimate answer is, “Because the results of my coaching are demonstrably more positive.” In other words the difference is obvious even to someone who doesn’t possess those skills.
That’s why I go out to dinner at a four star restaurant instead of pretending I’m a gourmet chef, myself, and it’s why I take my car to a mechanic, regardless of his credentials, because he fixes it right the first time and my cousin Larry will just mess it up.
People are smart. They will hire the coaches with the best reputations.
Certification/credentialing/licensing/chartering/regulating is only important if it prompts the coach to jump through hoops that help raise the coach’s ability, because ability to affect transformative results is what really matters.
The more coaches who can achieve that, the better, because that will provide our profession with the respect many of us crave, while preserving the freedom that we cherish.
Comment by DeeAnna Merz Nagel on 11 August 2009:
I think the other thing to consider with regard to this issue is- liability. And really, to stay unregulated means you take on less liability. What do I mean by that? Well, if a coach provides bad service and the consumer wishes to take action, there is no regulatory body in which to do so. Sure, there is the Better Business Bureau or the equivalent, there is the ability to file a complaint with a coaching organization (that may or not sanction members) but there is no regulated body that can take a bad coach out of the system. So regulation is not just about the professionals, it is also about the consumers who are served. While regulation is government run, it is the best mechanism we have to protect the public. What doe people think about this?
Comment by Mark Joyella on 11 August 2009:
Wow, this has become a lively and engaging conversation, and that’s amazing. I wonder if any of you have had any personal experience with government regulation, as a business owner, consultant, or through another line of work. I’d love to talk to you about that in the context of what government regulation might actually mean if it were imposed in any fashion on coaching.
Email me or catch me anytime on Twitter!
Mark
Comment by Tim Chedester on 10 August 2009:
Not being a fan of the one world order idea… I suggest that what you do in your country is good in your country. I think nuances of coaching are different in different countries. I have learned over the years that if I am paying attention to my neighbors yard, I am surely not paying attention to mine. I do see that it would be great to have a standard. However, when it comes to standards … coaching establishment often forget that it’s not whats best for the organization…. its what is best for the industry as a whole. So, With so many federations, and oversight organizations it makes it very difficult to come up with a “unifying” set of standards. I am a coach and cerified under Cheri Carter-Scott. Her style utilizes feelings in her coaching. ICF doesnt recognize that, and I dont think any other organizations do either. I spent 12 weeks training and certifying. I do have to say from time to time ..I run into these companies … franchises mostly…. where no cerification is needed. I get a bit upset with that personally. But I have to remember until there is a unified standard, thats just the way it is. I can live with it or not. It’s my problem. So, let’s set standards that are inclusive, not exclusive.
Comment by Andrea Feinberg on 10 August 2009:
I agree completely with Chris Baxter’s frustration over the ease with which anyone can call them self a coach and the ease with which that person might be accepted as such. My frustration is partly fueled by the years of study I enjoyed with the Coach U program to earn the right to participate in this profession as a qualified member and partly by the fact so few buyers of my service know that a specific body of knowledge, study and ethics were required before I could do so. Maybe that’s because there’s no repercussion for any less- or non-qualified ‘coach’ who’s never bothered to attain that level of knowledge. I’d happily endorse (and contribute towards) an arm of the ICF or IAC that specifically seeks out and publicly punishes with the term ‘fraud’ those who are (whether innocently or deliberately). I’d be tickled pink if every week I saw a public service announcement from those same certifying bodies that the public should demand to know the credentials and training of the ‘coaches’ they’re hiring. Those agencies which work so hard to create specific means (and fees) by which coaches can obtain the title ‘certified’ might do us all a favor by protecting the value of that designation in our potential clients’ eyes. If our certifying agencies can move to act as the final arbiter of what constitutes a ‘coach’ we can avoid the horrors of government regulation.
Comment by Giuseppe Totino on 10 August 2009:
I love this discussion!
I would also like to share my view on regulations, standards, and coaching training.
I am one of those inclined to believe that the more we stay away form Governmental regulation the better. While at first, the advantages may seem justifying such a move, in the longer run the actual restraints on the profession at large may well out-balance those advantages. I come from an highly regulated profession (tax advisory), and to cope with yearly new regulations requires a profession in its own rights. Better to stay self-regulated.
I also find it unhelpful to create parallelism with other professions. Coaching techniques are not unique to our profession, they are common to our humanity. When you ask a question rather than giving an answer, and when you allow for plenty of thinking time for answering, and when you encourage someone to pursue his/her true intentions, you would apply coaching techniques. You see!…I believe that everyone can be and has been a Coach ‘of a kind’.
But, being a Professional Coach means that we have rules we need to follow. For example, on the way we contract with clients, on confidentiality, or on conflicts of interests. So the route to differentiating Professional Coaches from non-professional Coaches is the route that emphasise our professional standards on conduct and ethics.
To this extent, professional training may even come secondary. In that as long as a Coach-client relationship is established within the boundaries set by the professional standards, if the client moves forward and value that relationship, that be it!
I am not saying, however, that we should not give proper value and weight to professional coaching training. On the opposite, I believe that this should be a must for any Professional Coach. However, this is more a personal ‘thing’. Coaches that want to expand their skills, may take appropriate training. Coaches that believe that having an affiliation (and title) would allow more success and sense of personal fulfilment, may go down the route of getting credentialled (or licensed etc.). And we all know that training and learning may last all life long…
So, in conclusion, Professional Coaching is in my view first and foremost a matter of Professional Standards – the idea of creating standards accepted globally is the way forward!. Maintaining self regulation would allow the Profession to best respond to the needs of all parties involved (not least, consider the increasing international dimension of coaching). Professional coaching training and affiliation is a way to strengthen the professional image, to further develop skills, and to create business opportunities.
Comment by Elle Allison on 9 August 2009:
This is a thoughtful conversation and I am grateful to take part in it. Linda Ballew’s elegant solution resonates with me over any other idea. I offer my insights and perspective here in order to further illuminate this view.
First, while I am sure there are bad coaches out there-my experience with coach colleagues worldwide is that we are a community of people who self regulate, share knowledge, and support others in extraordinary ways. I believe that a widely broadcasted code of ethics would offer the touchstone that would differentiate the “good” from the “bad”. Coaches who sign the code of ethics would become known for what the code contains. Everyone who signs the code would attach it to to the coaching agreement they establish with each coachee (for a model, see the Harvard MBA Code of Ethics).
Second, lets not under estimate our savvy coachees! If we widely broadcast the Coach Code of Ethics, coachees can search for their coaches’ name on this list of signers and understand what to expect from that relationship.
Third, whenever you begin to regulate a profession you end up establishing minimal competencies that historically, limit and depress excellence. A code of ethics is much more expansive, adaptive, and contextual- just as coaching is. It seems to be a better match.
I’d also like to add a thought to the conversation about people who are not officially coaches but who coach others in the scope of their work as a leader, supervisor, manager, or team member. First, coaching has always been known as being reciprocal. In other words, a person can’t help but learn coaching as they are being coached, just as a coach can’t help but learn more about the nature of the work of their coachee as they coach the person. We humans are, essentially learning machines. Moreover, coaches want their coachees to reach that place of efficacy, empowerment, and independence where they are guiding themselves much as their coach would guide them, as they go about their lives and work. This is what it is all about. Therefore, it is not a small leap to understand why these same leaders also choose to coach the other people they work with in their lives, organizations and teams.
Many of the leaders, supervisors, managers, that I have coached, have also brought me into their organization to teach coaching skills, perspectives, and competencies to the other leaders they work with. It is not that these leaders want to hang out a coach shingle. No, they want to be leaders, supervisors, and managers. But they gratefully recognize that knowing how and when coaching a co-worker could make the difference, makes a difference! What I emphasize with the leaders whom I teach how to coach is that they call it out and be transparent about it. I teach them to ask their co-workers, “May I coach you on this?” Or, “Would you like to be coached on this?” Then, the leader has been given permission to use a set of tools that others come to understand will help them think differently about whatever dilemma they are facing. This happens by default anyway- there are some people who simply are known for the powerful way they interact with others because of the way they listen, the questions they ask, the fact that they ask the person to take action, and because they follow up to see how things went.
Thanks for providing this forum for exploration of these ideas. I appreciate being in this community.
Elle Allison
Comment by DeeAnna Merz Nagel on 8 August 2009:
Mark Joyellas article about coaching and regulation here at the Coaching Commons has motivated me to say a bit more about my thoughts on the matter. First, determining what has professionalized the helping professions in general is no easy task, but generally speaking, regulation- the creation of a license- is what has allowed the counseling field to flourish as a recognized profession in the United States.
When I was in graduate school, only psychologists, marriage and family therapists and social workers were licensed. During my last year of school at the University of Georgia, a licensing law was enacted, regulating the practice of counseling and psychotherapy. That law was also a title law. And so what came to be is the Licensed Professional Counselor designation in Georgia. Now I believe 49 of the 50 states have a similar license. The counseling field still struggles with identity issues because even among the 50 states we cannot agree on what we should be called- LPC, LCPC, LMHC…
But what did come from this regulation is the ability for people like me to hang my shingle and call myself a counselor and a psychotherapist without the worry that other unqualified people can do the same. I have specific education that precludes others in the states in which I practice to call themselves a counselor or a psychotherapist. In fact, if Betty Sue decides that she is a helper and wants to open a counseling practice, she cant unless she meets the requirements set forth by the states licensing law. If she does open a practice and she uses the words counselor or psychotherapist she can receive a cease and desist order from the state. Psychologists and social workers also practice under a title law protecting their profession and disallowing unqualified people from calling themselves something they are not. So I think to myself, Wouldnt coaches want the same protection a title law offers?
As I have often said, licensing is mired with complications and I would not wish those complications on any profession. I am licensed in three states and each state has a different verse to the same song; this is but one reason a national license makes sense for counselors. So I am not suggesting that coaches line up at their respective state legislators doors asking for similar regulation. I am simply providing talking points about how to protect the profession and the consumer (more on that later). Legislating a profession does not necessarily mean the person is qualified. We all know of bad accountants, lawyers and doctors that are licensed to practice. But what defines a scope of practice? Certainly not a code of ethics- Betty Sue can simply state that she does not have to follow a certain code because she is not a member of the codes organization. Without any regulation in place, Betty Sue is left to do what she wants because she chooses not to ascribe to what the profession has decided is ethical practice. With regulation, ethical standards become part of the rules and law. If you consider this a non-issue, can you talk me through it? More talking sure to come!
Comment by Linda Ballew on 7 August 2009:
What I would like to suggest is a unifying global registry of coaches, where all professional coaching associations, training organizations, etc. collaborate and produce a globally recognized code of ethics. Coaches would register, agree to the code, list their profiles, training, experience and specialties. The registry could be modeled after the Better Business Bureau, where coaches worldwide are listed by genre and clients are invited to document and evaluate their coaching experiences, both positive and negative – at the Registry for all to view. Imagine a coach registry with 30,000 coaches. Unified. Transparent. Global. Simple. And a powerful giant step forward for the planet, eh?
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 7 August 2009:
Even being certified, licensed, credentialled, chartered, registered, etc.; the measurements would still be the efficiency & effectiveness of the coach-coachee relationships in achieving what were sought out to attain. So my measurements are not about applying only KNOWING (declarative knowledge) or DOING (procedural knowledge), but more so on PERFORMING (performance knowledge) that make the coach-coachee relationship efficient, effective, and meaningful.
Being certified, licensed, etc. acknowledges that the coach meets the stringent criteria & requirements for declarative and procedural knowledge, for that particular ‘regulating body’ (now which body is universally accepted as the ‘gold standard’? There are so many great ones in the market.).
There will always be coaching performance ‘gaps’ between even two similarly certified or licensed coaches from the same certifying ‘body’; because we will always have ‘contexts’ in play. Performance requires ‘adaptive responses’ and no two similarly credentialled coaches, may have similar skill sets that will ultimately increase or decrease the quality levels of the coaching conversation. so, my question is: “In the credentialling process, how does an assessor capture these ‘performance knowledge’ (which I simply define as the ability in adaptive responding so as to convert the coaching conversation into a high quality, purpose-driven & result-oriented coaching conversation?); and yet achieve consistency in the assessment results for credentialling purpose?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.