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.

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…”).

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.

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

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

Mark

Allow me answer your two questions.

Firstly, as there is no listing of email addresses on the website we had no way to respond to the individual signatories. We used the ICF website with notification in several places (both inside and outside ICF) letting people know that the posting was done in response to the original letter.

Secondly, as far as being vague, I’m not sure how much more direct we can be than to say “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.”

So Mark, thanks for your interest and it would be great if you could use your article to encourage all coaches to get involved in the process, to attend the Forum or participate in a call.

Kind regards,

Karen