|
Follow ICF Conference updates on Twitter with CoachReporter
In the end, neither fur nor fists flew.
After months of at times animated debate over the ICF’s announced plans to change its three-tiered system of credentials, the group’s leaders and its members–many of whom signed an online petition asking for an open discussion–had the level-headed discussion both sides had hoped for.
The ICF president, Karen Tweedie, made clear to a packed ballroom of attendees at the group’s annual convention in Orlando that no decision had yet been made on credentials, and that she believed “both sides” could be happy with the outcome. She vowed to continue the open and transparent discussion before the ICF board makes a final decision, most likely in January.
Coaches who’d joined the online ICF Coaches Take a Stand effort wore buttons and passed out a list of questions at the luncheon meeting, and afterward described the meeting as positive.
CoachReporter Mark Joyella has the story from Orlando:
Sequence 1-ICF Credential Meeting-H.264 for Apple TV from Mark Joyella on Vimeo.
Note: Dr.Vikki Brock volunteers her time publishing coaching history posts at the Coaching Commons.
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There are 9 Responses so far...
Based on the video posted by the ICF from the “Lunch and Learn” the description that Mark included above seems to be contrary to ICF President Karen Tweedie’s comment that the ICF Board is “committed to the ISO.” That’s a long way from “open and transparent discussion.”
I’m still open to more ‘direct communication’; however the fact that the Lunch and Learn was videoed does show some transparency. I think ICF Coaches Take a Stand has made an impact and the board appears to be listening.
I was a bit offended by the remark that MCCs have an element of service, which is true, but is that all we’re known for? Also offended by the remark, “we didn’t elect the MCCs, we elected the board.” Apparently the coach who made that remark doesn’t know she didn’t elect the board only the directors.
I can get onboard with ISO being about the process, and ACC being the ISO point of entry, but not with moving away from the 3 levels.
One of the remarkable things about the Lunch & Learn was the minimal demonstration of hearing, acknowledging, or summarizing by the session leaders of the feedback given at the meeting.
This missing element parallels the totally inappropriate powerpoint beginning of the meeting. The gist of the comments that have been made by hundreds here at the Coaching Commons and other places (many of which were probably made by some of the 125 or so participants at the Lunch & Learn) weren’t even referred to by the ICF president. Instead she started the meeting with a powerpoint about the value of the ISO.
The meeting missed by a mile the concept of “conversation” or “discussion.” It shouldn’t have been titled “Lunch & Learn” and instead should have been more accurately titled: “Lunch and We’ll Tell You Why You Don’t Know What You’re Talking About.”
There have been a couple of things irking me since the credentialing forum at the conference – and by the way, has the ICF removed the blog from the website? I tried to post there….
First, Karen Tweedie pointed out a discrepancy in her slides regarding ISO, stating that one slide said “ISO-compliant” whereas another referred to “ISO-aligned” and she then stated that the latest intention is for the new credentialing process to be “ISO-aligned.” Having worked with several organizations through their ISO registration processes, it is my experience that there is no “aligned” status with ISO. You are either compliant, or not. This is an example of what some coaching schools would call “weasel words” – and evidence of either backtracking or lack of real understanding of what is required through an affiliation with ISO. I think she also missed an opportunity to diffuse some of the tension in the room regarding ISO – if “aligned” is really the new status, then the message could have been that the ICF will use ISO standards as a guideline for developing a new process, rather than pursuing a fully compliant status with all the baggage attached.
Second, also related to clarity of communication, Karen and Giovanna could, in my view, have advanced the idea of transparency better in their responses to the “Take a Stand” questions posed by Vikki. Specifically, when asked about future member votes on major issues, the response was “our current by-laws do not allow for that.” The better response might have been “….and I am happy to take that suggestion forward to the Board for consideration as a change to the current by-laws.” Similarly on the question of posting Board meeting agendas and minutes, rather than vague references to fiduciary responsibility the better response might have been “Yes, except in cases where there are confidentiality concerns which would include such things as personnel issues and possibly some financial discussions.”
I appreciate that it must have been very uncomfortable for Karen and Giovanna to stand on the stage in the face of the emotion around this issue, but I also think they could have served their own, the audience’s and the organization’s needs better with some better communications strategizing and more concerted efforts to demonstrate real listening and respect for members’ interests. Clearly this is a long way from over – it will be an interesting next few months.
I agree with the points made by Karen. The ICF blog is still available (go to the ICF main page and there is a clickable graphic for the blog), but there is almost no traffic there.
I was not in Orlando, but watched the video of the “Lunch and Learn”.
It appears as though there has been some movement, based on the outpouring of opinions over the past few months – there is now talk of potential “ISO alignment” rather than “ISO compliance” and there was also a reference to the possibility of maintaining 3 levels of credential. I believe we should give credit to the shifts we have seen. At the same time, we will see what actual decisions are made.
It’s my impression that Giovanna made an extremely important point. Her question of “Do you trust us?” sounded to me more like a rhetorical challenge than an open question that could acknowledge the possibility that lack of trust might really be an issue.
Perhaps that is my idiosyncratic interpretation of what Giovanna said, but I think the question has been at least implicit, when not overt, in many of the comments that have been made online and at the lunch. It’s always easier to analyze comments in retrospect, but I wonder how something like “We’d like to know if we have lost your trust and, if so, what you think it would take to win it back?” might have sounded.
People with great strengths and excellent intentions can end up in situations where sub-optimal decisions are made. Questioning decisions and processes does not have to imply that one mistrusts the other’s intentions (although that may be or become the case) and does not have to imply a lack of respect for the person (although it may be perceived that way).
In the end, I think that the move toward greater transparency may be the only way to build greater trust. My impression is that there is more work to be done on that front.
I wanted to take a little time to comment on the personal impact this has had on me and my views of coaching as a profession. I stepped back from this conversation about 6 weeks ago. I found myself getting caught up in the emotions and began to question my objectivity. I became annoyed at coaches who found this issue to be unimportant or one that didn’t effect them. My personal view was too many people were (are) doing their version of coaching to be bothered about coaching as a recognized and legitimate profession.
It reminded me of the time in my early 30′s when I was labeled “angry”. Now, like then, I had become too vested. Where is that fine line between passion and obsession? What is the difference between a vision and a dream?
Like Jonathan I did not attend the ICF Conference – nor did I look at the “Lunch and Learn” video. I do applaud Karen and Giovanna for getting up in a room and making the effort to address concerns. It must have been very difficult for them and they deserve to be acknowledged. Under these circumstances even the most experience leader and presenter will encounter challenges. If Giovanna did ask “Do you trust us?” then I say two things. If you have to ask, you have a problem. And, this wasn’t the most powerful coaching question.
I have regained my balance on this issue and hope it has not become a position of apathy. I just mailed in my MCC renewal and right now feel less inclined to renew my ICF membership this spring.
I attended the Lunch session in Orlando and my overall impression was that it was a well intended start that was poorly executed. I will not repeat the comments made here already, but I will add that I am curious why the organisers did not use an external facilitator to run the session. I think that Karen could have opened the meeting and then invited a neutral party to run the session. In response to the trust question – it is quite difficult to answer. I don’t doubt that the intentions of everyone involved on the ICF Board are to advance the coaching industry – so in that sense – yes I trust the board and admire their contribution. On the other hand, I am not sure that I trust the ability of the board at this point to continue with an objective and transparent process based on sound evidence based practices. To that point, the most insightful comment of the day was from Francine Campone – until we define a knowledge base for coaching the credentialing issue is almost a mute point.
Let’s hope that in 2010 we come together as a community of practice and move towards a more open, transparent and professional ICF.
I too was at the Orlando lunch-time meeting and was impressed with:
Karen and Giovanna’s authenticity;
The degreee of misunderstanding about what an ISO process is (some on my table thought this would specify the actual ‘content’ of the proposed credential rather than the process by which it is assessed);
Francine’s comment about identifying the body of knowledge upon which coaching is founded;
The value of the open, face to face conversation; and
The complexity of the issue for a relatively new organisation that is now truly global.
As a ‘non-north amercian’ coach, the issue of moving from 3 credentials is not a big issue for me. Sure I am only a PCC, but more important for me is the lack of a wide spread general level of awareness of ICF within my country (Australia). In my 10 years of coaching here, I have had great difficutly trying to relate the meaning of the differences between the 3 credentials (and distinguishing them from the many other coach training school’s credentials) – and from the qualifications gained under the Australian Qualification Framework. Complex indeed.
So, I do trust our board has the collective global perspective and the best intentions for our collective long term interest. I do trust that they are listening. I do trust that those who need to, will speak up. This is also needed. If we can’t trust our board and ourselves, then we are indeed lost.
The conversation at the conference demonstrated how we will work this out in a mature manner. It also demonstrated that it will take time. There will be no easy, silver bullet solution.