|
Everybody’s talking about an open, honest discussion. But the doubts are real, the divisions run deep, and even some former leaders of the ICF wonder if the outcome is as open-ended as has been advertised.
The ICF’s president, Karen Tweedie, took to her group’s freshly-created “Thoughts on Proposed Changes” blog on October 8th to formally apologize “for not clearly communicating what is happening around our credentialing work and the purpose behind it.”
The ICF’s leader—finding herself and her organization in the middle of a momentous uproar over proposed changes to the federation’s credentialing process—felt it necessary not just to apologize, but to address what Tweedie clearly believed needed to be said. So much so, she wrote it in bold type: “no final decisions have been made.”
She went on to write, “I want to reinforce to you now that what has been shared is a proposal—a concept idea that the Board needs to get your opinion on.”
Is the ICF proposal nothing more than that?
Or is the decision to change the credentialing system, essentially, a “done deal?”
Some coaches posting on the ICF’s own blog have their doubts. As Master Coach Karen Wright wrote, “one of the most disrespectful things an organization can do is to invite comment and opinion when there is really no interest or intention of using the feedback generated,” she said, conceding that she was concerned “that the ISO ‘proposal’ is already a fait accompli and not a proposal at all.”
Others suggested the ICF risks alienating its core of coaches.
As Coach Nick Zart put it, the situation could “easily deteriorate and other groups could form to represent dissident views.”
A group of dissidents have already formed, of course, and it was their petition drive that led directly to the ICF’s own efforts at openness. The online effort, ICF Coaches Take a Stand, was notable not just for the number of coaches who added their names (710 as of October 28th), but for the fact that five former ICF presidents were among the names on the petition.
“I think it is significant to have past presidents still involved in the practices and dialogue around the well being of ICF membership and our standards,” said D.J. Mitsch, one of the five former ICF presidents to add their names to the ICF Coaches Take a Stand petition.
“Coming together again in support of this petition was an individual decision for each of us,” said Mitsch. “Truthfully I think many of our members (us) were asleep to the occurring changes and didn’t take time to voice our opinions. Now we realize the value of doing so.”
The petition effort resulted in a blog, a series of phone calls for ICF members, and plans for a Q&A luncheon (at the Interantional ICF Conference in December) on the topic. As Tweedie has said, “our true intent is to engage in conversations with our members, credentialed coaches and other stakeholders.”
“Does that mean the ICF leadership and staff are actually listening or are they ‘going through the motions’ with no intention to stop the runaway train from moving to a single, ISO-based credential, regardless of what the members desire?” asked Bobette Reeder, one of the five former ICF presidents who signed the online petition.
“I choose to believe (unless proven otherwise) that the ICF leadership has heard the rumblings of discontent and that it matters to them,” said Reeder.
The ICF has stated that input from calls, letters and blog comments will be reviewed when the ICF board meets in December, and that meeting will be followed by another round of public discussions, plans clearly intended to dampen the belief that the ISO-proposal is truly a “runaway train.”
Coach Sandy Vilas signed the ICF Coaches Take a Stand petition and he, too, is taking the ICF at its word. “I believe it represents an honest willingness to debate the issues to reach an informed decision,” he said.
What’s your take? Have you joined the debate?
Do you expect your opinions–for, against, or otherwise–will be heard? If you’ve chosen to stay on the sidelines, why?
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There are 5 Responses so far...
A common theme in this Coaching Commons discussion so far is that the ICF wants input or feedback from members and others concerned about the future of coaching. Several ICF Board members have reinforced this request through their contributions to the Coaching Commons discussion, the ICF blog, LinkedIn, and other places.
But I think their request for feedback is falling short of the mark. I’m not referring to the skepticism some contributors have expressed about whether a decision about ISO has already been made. Nor am I referring to the integrity or sincerity of each ICF Board member’s plea for feedback. The requests are genuine and well-intentioned.
The problem is that the requests keep coming without any indication of what they’ve heard so far. Without demonstrating their understanding of the feedback to date, the ICF Board is placing their request for feedback in jeopardy. The requests have a hollow ring to them.
Simple questions are not being answered. Instead they are met with the smiley face equivalent of “your call is important to us.” This just won’t do. It’s time for the ICF Board members to summarize the different viewpoints, respond to the questions, and provide members and others through this forum with more definitive responses that even if they do not address the specific concerns at least summarize them.
To sidestep this process reduces the credibility of the ICF Board as a group, increases the skepticism of the members, and minimizes the true exchange of viewpoints.
I am still puzzled.
Is the issue really about:
#1. the revamp of the three-tier credentialling system (including the processes, assessor’s issues, etc. related to the credentialling system); or
#2. the lack of ‘strategic communication’ initiative pertaining to the revamp of the credentialling system integrating IS0 17024 as part of the revamp; or
#3. really about ISO 17024 (which is really about the assessment of the ‘existing’ or revamped credentialling system – not directly about assessing the credentialled coach, and more about the credentialling management system)? or
#4. not recognizing the needs and efforts of existing ICF credentialled coaches who had put in so much investments into obtaining ACC, PCC or MCC status? or
#5. others issues that are close to heart, yet not willing to disclose publicly, or prefering to remain private?
Each issue, although interrelated needs to be addressed separately before drawing a conclusion.
ICF among others, is about elevating the coaching profession; positioning as the premier and ONLY CHOICE Organization when it comes to coaching profession membership; leading the field in the art & science of coaching practices; doing the ‘right things’ for coaching and its memberships whether the decision is ‘hard’ or not; promoting the culture of coaching; and most important, grow the memberships.
So, will ISO 17024 leads to the above? If the answer is “YES”, should the ICF Board ‘materialize’ the ISO 17024 initiative? If the answer is “NO”, will the ICF Board drop the initiative?
On what evidential basis or ‘projections’ should the decision to continue to pursue or drop ISO 17024 can be made?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
To Rey’s point, what are we to make of the lack of response to 2 recent questions that have been raised:
Is there an intention to respond directly and explicitly to the 7 items mentioned in the ICF Coaches Take a Stand letter now signed by over 700 coaches, including 5 past ICF presidents, 30 board members, 10 credentialing chairs, and 92 assessors? How should we interpret the lack of response about what I believe was a clear question about whether to expect a response? Does it make sense to leave questions like this just “hanging” here?
Is there an intention to respond directly to the request for a list of the specific problems that the ISO proposal is intended to remedy? How should we interpret the lack of even a “that’s a reasonable question but we’ll have to get back to you on that”? Shouldn’t this list have been the starting point of the entire process and, therefore, readily available to be shared?
I realize that it might be unrealistic to answer every question as it is posed, but I am curious about the lack of any response to these specific questions.
I acknowledge the difficult position in which the current board finds itself. Nonetheless, here we all are….
Whatever comes of the new credentialling initiative, I feel that at this point it has served a purpose – it has ignited the “fire in the belly” of coaches around the world. It’s excellent to see so many coaches stepping up, expressing an opinion, and being passionate about a significant industry-based issue.
Interestingly in Australia, I’ve not seen or heard much activity and I wonder why this is case?
I find it amusing that the very people who are in the business of facilitating change are so strongly resisting this big change which is so necessary for the coaching industry. The ICF credentialling system to date does not measure up to the standards of other professions. There is no such thing as a Master doctor, laywer or teacher. You’re either competent or you’re not and if you do really excel, then you might win a prize here and there… Maybe, to satisfy the obvious demand, the ICF could introduce MCC, PCC and ACC annual prizes rather than certification?
Really, if coaching is to become a “profession”, it needs to let go of… dare I say it, the ego trip it has been on for way too long already, and make way for professional standards that are based on good ol’ competency. In my experience of the ICF, just the fact that they’re going for this change, despite all the uproar, means that they heard those of us who have complained for years already.
COACHES, LET YOUR CLIENTS’ OUTCOMES, TESTIMONIALS AND REFERRALS DEFINE YOU AS A MASTER COACH – you don’t need the little letters.
Kerryn Griffiths
phd but not mcc, pcc or acc
(yes, the little letters do add a bit of clout, but really, the proof is in the pudding)