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”.

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.

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.

Email me or catch me anytime on Twitter!

Mark

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.

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

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!