|
Is the ICF’s mind made up, or not? And did the ICF respond to a petition signed by over 700 ICF member coaches, or not?
In an “open letter” posted today to the ICF’s recently-created blog, ICF president Karen Tweedie writes “we want to reassure you that the only decision we have made is that the credentialing program needs to be enhanced. No final decisions have been made on what those enhancements entail.”
This is essentially the same message that was posted October 8th, when the ICF apologized for the “confusion and concern” over the credentialing question: “First of all, let me apologize for not clearly communicating what is happening around our credentialing work and the purpose behind it. And secondly, let me assure you that no final decisions have been made or will be made in December.” (emphasis original)
The most recent blog post comes a day after the deadline imposed by coaches who signed an online petition at “ICF Coaches Take a Stand,” asking the ICF to stop any further action on revising credentialing standards until a full, open discussion could be had. In the petition–signed by (as of this writing) 738 coaches, including five past ICF presidents–the coaches outline their concerns and ask for a written response by November 15th.
“That date passed quietly,” writes coach Barbara Luther in a letter today to ICF president-elect Ed Modell. Luther, like other coaches who signed the petition, waited for some kind of response Sunday, and got none.
“A decision not to respond directly to questions that were asked publicly is, in my opinion, a very loud response,” said coach Jonathan Sibley. “Whether or not it was the ICF leadership’s intention, to choose not to respond to over 700 coaches, many of whom are past-presidents, credentialing chairs, assessors, and MCCs appears disrespectful and outside the norms for healthy dialogue.”
Coach Vikki Brock, also a signer of the online petition, said the ICF’s failure to respond by the petition’s requested date represented “lack of leadership” at the ICF. “It saddens me deeply and yet is not unexpected,” said Brock.
On Monday afternoon, the ICF posted its “open letter,” which promises a discussion of the credentialing issue at a luncheon lasting an hour and fifteen minutes during the ICF’s December convention in Orlando. There is also a promised report of the comments ICF has received, to be published at the end of November.
The letter does not mention the petition, or specifically answer its questions, including an accounting of how much money has been spent on the effort to revise the credentialing system, and to whom that money has been paid.
“(The letter) is typical of communications from ICF which take a lot of words to say very little,” writes Barbara Luther in her letter to Ed Modell. “We were expecting clear responses to our specific requests.”
Luther also quotes from what she says is a letter she received from ICF president Karen Tweedie that would seem to contradict the ICF’s statements that “no decision has been made.” The letter, written September 22nd, according to Luther, includes the following passage Luther attributes to Tweedie:
“The Board has decided, on the basis of the work we have done, validated by a comprehensive professional process, that there will be one foundational credential and two other distinctions–Mentor Coach and Assessor. We are still considering how to address the issue of a senior credential. We are seeking input from our broad range of stakeholders to help us fine-tune the details of this foundational credential and on matters relating to the complex issues of transition.”
The Coaching Commons requested comment from the ICF today about the petition, the response, and the claims made in the letter from Barbara Luther. An ICF spokesperson provided The Coaching Commons with a link to the open letter and a promise that someone would be “in touch with you as soon as possible regarding an official response from the ICF about the petition.”
There are 7 Responses so far...
I want to share an email that I received today from ICF president Karen Tweedie that addresses some–but not all–of the points raised in my story. I have followed up in the hopes of getting more detail, and will post any further information I get.
Mark
Mark,
Our goal as a board is to engage with our members and other interested stakeholders in everything we do as representatives of the ICF membership. It is certainly true as we discuss the important issue of enhancing the ICF Credentialing Program. As such, we provided an Open Letter to all members to outline the process and share information, but we also made sure it addressed the concerns presented in the petition we received. Those concerns called for, and I’m paraphrasing for spacing:
• an immediate halt to the implementation process of the proposed transition schema to a single ISO certification
• to retain and continue to promote the existing credentialing system
• to host a meeting in a forum where stakeholders can provide input and where the information will be recorded and shared (Credentialing Forum on Dec. 4)
• call for collaborative, open dialog with all ICF members to participate in the processes related to enhancing the ICF credentialing system
• follow the Forum with additional opportunities, including four teleconferences for providing input before a decision is made
• establish a Coaching Knowledge Base Advisory Board
• formulate, document and implement a transparency plan
The Open Letter specifically addresses these points and questions. Please do not confuse questions that have come up over the course of dialogue with the original requests as stated in the letter. The next part of our work, the report that summarizes all the comments, will help us identify all the questions, suggestions and opinions that have come up over the course of this open comment period so we can incorporate them into our thinking as we move forward. We will also strive to provide answers, recognizing that we don’t have all the answers to all the questions posed.
We are engaging in an open comment period and we ask everyone to keep an open mind, to participate, to work with us, to collegially share your collective knowledge, experience and expertise. Our work is shared and important – to build on the excellent foundation we have to ensure that our credentialing program meets future needs, is globally consistent, fair and administered in a timely fashion for our worldwide membership. Let’s focus on how we can all best achieve this important goal together.
Kind regards,
Karen
Where can we see Barbara Luther’s letter to Ed Modell?
What is happening with the credentialling process and the ISO proporsal is a deep concern for me at different levels:
1. in a democratic society members have the right to say what they think, to be asked for their views before any decision is taken and to feel listened to. This implies to be informed from the very beginning, not just a long the way.
2. The way this has been handled so far is in contradiction of what we believe and make the world believe coaching is about. An open and honest conversation. This conversation doesn’t feel this way, it feels more like a monologue than a conversation, because unless questions are answered there is not a two-way.
3. Values and ethics are clearly different than internal politics. Why didn’t a debate take place before any conversation started? Why opinions and views were not sought from the beginning? What are the motives behind this move? If people matter, their opinions also matter.
4. What is the short and long term vision for the ICF? Where are we going? Does it matter who comes along? What are the implications of going ahead?
I’m not saying if the ISO is a good or a bad decision. So far the credentialling system seemed to work well and be enough. I’m mostly unhappy about how this matter is been handled as raises the question of what is the point to belong to a professional body if it doesn’t represent what their members want and ‘doesn’t walk its talk?’
Maite Baron, PCC
A few comments on the recent response from the ICF:
First of all, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the ICF Leadership as volunteers to the organization in service of the 14,000 members (ICF Website) . I also would like to point out, that the term of the Presidency is currently only 1 year. OD/HR research recognizes that the transition period for leaders to become fully effective is 90 days. It is also reasonable to expect that effectiveness during the last 90 days diminishes. With a 1 year term , we are left with only 6 months which is probably much too short to deal with the complex issues now facing the organization. Perhaps longer term limits should be part of the discussion in terms of a framework which creates the ability to deal with increasingly complex issues.
My second comment is related to the nomination and election process of the President, Board, and appointment of Executive Directors, Staff etc. In a membership driven organization, the leadership needs to be directly accountable to the membership. I will not go as far as to advocate democracy, which is not a culturally appropriate context for some members in our international organization. Perhaps the current situation is symptomatic of the current system of choosing the ICF leadership.
The latest response from the ICF was prompted by the open letter signed by over 700 members, which is approximately 5% of the membership. I am surprised that the tone of the response by Karen on behalf of the ICF did not recognize this dissatisfaction and make any attempt to apologize to the 5% of members who signed the open letter. Instead, it seemed to take an overtly defensive stance without recognizing the 700 members or those members who created the website. I agree with J Sibley’s question on the ICF Blog and echo his request for clarity as to why Karen chose to ignore acknowledging the website and its contributors.
At this juncture, I think it would be prudent for the ICF to take responsibility and apologize for the impact of their decisions on the membership while at the same time explaining their plans for moving forward so that we can all start the challenging work of creating a professional credentialing criteria and system that will enhance the professionalism of coaching and serve our clients.
Perhaps it’s an oversight, but as of 11/19 at 4:45 PM Eastern Time (US), the ICF website includes the following:
ICF Credentialing System to Continue to Meet Global Standards
In order to continue to meet the growing global need for the ICF Credential, the ICF is taking steps to refine our current credentialing system to meet the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards for bodies operating certification of persons.
The URL for this is:
http://www.coachfederation.org/about-icf/credential-program/
I would like to suggest that the wording is at odds with recent declarations that issue is still being explored. At the very least, it seems premature and I am curious about whether that will now be removed or reworded (for example, “exploring the possibility of moving to ISO…”).
On the one hand, how responsive for someone to remove the reference to ISO that was quoted “…ICF is taking steps to refine our current credentialing system to meet the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards for bodies operating certification of persons” on the day that this was pointed out here.
On the other hand, I feel it would have been a move toward greater transparency and dialog to acknowledge this. This seems to fit the same pattern as responding to “ICF Coaches Take a Stand” without acknowledging the group in that response.
I think it could only help people’s perceptions and doubts about the ICF leadership to experiment with more direct communication – for example, a simple “whoops, we forgot we had posted that and have now taken it down” might have been a step in that direction.