|
Like the reviewers’ raves in a movie advertisement, coaches backing Australia’s fast-moving drive to deliver a set of coaching standards spare no adjective in their praise.
“I can go as far as to say that the coaching industry in Australia will be leading the world when it comes to taking giant steps towards professionalism and regulation,” said Sally Parrish, director of the Australian & New Zealand Institute of Coaching and member of the working group developing the coaching guidelines.
For Noel Posus, an Australia/New Zealand Coach of the Year, the effort to answer key coaching questions such as “what does it mean to be a coach?” is nothing short of “the most important event in the history of coaching in Australia (and New Zealand…and possibly the world).”
By the end of the year, the working group—which includes coaching providers, universities that teach coaching and major purchasers of coaching—will present the result of their work in a handbook, with chapters on ethics, coaching competencies and training, though the finished product will not specifically recommend which training a coach should undertake.
“One of the key struggles has been the infinite parameters and the breadth and depth of coaching,” said Parrish. “As a result of having to consider so many alternatives and options, often the guidelines do not result in an outcome or in a decision, but rather in a list of options.”
The guidelines, which will be open to comment, are intended as a starting point—a benchmark, Parrish says, intended to define coaching in the marketplace.
“Whether the coach abides by the guidelines or chooses otherwise is up to them, but since the guidelines are targeted at coaching clients rather than coaches, it will be
the clients who dictate how much impact these have.”
The Australian effort has been underway for more than four years, but presents a massive challenge to coaches who have paid little attention to the emerging definition of coaching—and the “benchmarks” that clients may quickly adopt as the standard. “As they say, the cream will float to the top,” said Parrish. “And that can only be a great thing for great coaches, clients and the industry as a whole.”
For Posus, the work represents a move by coaches Down Under to the forefront: “Towards the end of 2010, coaching in Australia will change significantly and monumentally,” he said. “In fact, Australia will be leading the world” in terms of advancing the profession—and moving toward regulation.
But Posus—who is not directly involved in the working group’s efforts—concedes the Australian guidelines do not come without problems, from critics who question whether a profession like coaching can ever truly be regulated without disastrous effects, to the inevitable power struggles when key players gather to write regulations that will impact them all.
“I think it’s a very interesting time where numerous key players in the industry have come together to positively collaborate on a project that could benefit us all and our clients, markets and even governments,” said Posus. “That said, I’m also observing a lot of behavior which appears to be fear based. There seems to be people afraid that one group or another is going to take advantage of the coaching guidelines and to use them unethically, or for inappropriate commercial purposes.”
Posus says he hopes the “political posturing” won’t derail Australia’s chance to set the agenda. “We have a wonderful opportunity here and the coaching world’s spotlight is on us.”
Parrish says the coaching guidelines she’s helped write may lead coaches in other countries to attempt the same thing. But seeing international groups gather together to develop global guidelines could be far more difficult. “Having witnessed so much ‘but we do it like this’ on a local level, I can only imagine that that fragmentation gets bigger as more and more parties join in.”
The guidelines—embraced by ANZI, with a series of October sessions scheduled to educate member coaches on what the process will mean to them—will not be immediately adopted by international groups like the ICF. Parrish says the local ICF chapter is “on board” but even so, at a local level will continue to operate within ICF’s global guidelines.
“I would love to see regulation,” said Parrish. “Regulation is a good thing and is good practice. These guidelines may be a large step towards regulation and have provided a great forum for lots of debate—but there is still a large void between guidelines and a regulator.”
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There are 11 Responses so far...
I have been involved in the formation of a local network of independent business and life coaches. No two coaches are alike, so it has been a real learning experience to come to understand all their individual approaches.
My first comment is that I can imagine the enormity of trying to come up with a set of regulations to cover the range of our members. Congratulations to those people who committed their energy! I look forward to seeing what they have produced.
Secondly, regulation usually means “weeding out the duds”. If our 20 represent a normal spread of abilities/skills/experience, then through the accreditation process 5 will pass with flying colors, 10 will achieve accreditation with a bit of study, but 5 won’t make the grade.
I applaud anything which lifts the professional standing of coaches, but I suspect there will be some people making a lot of money by coaching coaches how to pass.
I am still wondering if there are no clarity and arrival of consensus even at the micro-level among the hundreds of ‘coaching providers/practitioners’ from so many diverse cultural and niche coaching backgrounds, [for example: the benchmarks for 'questioning skills' - definition of questioning types, sequencing of questioning (dance of questioning between and within internal & external frames of references), benchmarks between the behavioural, technical, approaches, techniques and methodologies of questioning at the basic to mastery levels, etc.], how could ‘coach regulation & enforcement of practice’ ever be fair or justified?
Even on ethics (at the macro-level), there is often gaps in ‘interpretations’ and ‘grey areas’ the degree of ethical standards?
The Australian initiative is a great step in the evolution of the ‘coaching’ profession, incorporating the stakeholders to develop the ‘benchmarks’. However, all benchmarks are mere guidelines and always subjected to interpretations.
The key to success is reliability, validity, consistency and fairness in interpretation of the benchmarks. The challenge with ‘regulation’ is can these be achieved?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
It is interesting to me to see people clamoring for regulation and thinking of government control of their livelihood as a good thing.
I urge every coach who imagines government control (aka regulation) of their work to be a good thing to ask others who are regulated.
Ask beauty salon owners. Ask attorneys and doctors and accountants. Ask people who pay for professional licenses, professional fees and taxes, and people who are required to fill out government forms in order to practice their profession. Ask them if they believe the government regulations specific to their profession are appropriate and helpful.
Ask people who have been visited by a government agent investigating the veracity of the information on the government forms.
Ask people who never imagined that elected or appointed officials or career bureaucrats would be setting the standards for their profession once “regulation” was enacted.
Imagine the worst practitioner of your profession “advising” the government on what the standards should be – because that’s who might be the friend of someone who will have the power to regulate and enforce.
If you think your government, wherever you live, is brilliant and staffed by intelligent, sensitive people who are not in cahoots with their contributors, cronies, and close relatives, and that the future holds nothing but continued brilliance in government, then by all means, push for regulation.
Just remember this: once a government takes control of a profession and revenue can be extracted from those whose livelihood will depend upon government approval, licensing, and regulation, you will never be able to rescind that power. No government can resist the temptation to raise revenue.
As a professional philanthropist, I must report to the government. The government has power over what I do. In the US, there are discussions about further intrusions into the practice of professional philanthropy. There are voices calling for foundations like mine to be forced to include specific categories of people on my grantmaking board so that the charitable dollars can be “fairly” allocated.
Imagine your government eventually telling you who you MUST coach, and the people you MAY NOT coach. If you can imagine it, a government can do it.
If coaching moves to government regulation willingly, it will be admitting that coaches are incapable of reasonable cooperation to establish self-regulation.
In my opinion, that would be a tragedy because it would show how ineffective the coaching process is. If we can’t meet the challenge of regulating ourselves without ceding authority and control to a government, it is an admission that coaches and coaching are not capable of producing solutions.
Ruth Ann’s points should not be ignored. This sounds like very important work, but I don’t see that organizations like the ICF were partnered with. Since the ICF has been working for over ten years on credentialling (self regulation) this group may be re-inventing the wheel to some extent. Too bad.
A deep understanding of the pros and cons of “self regulation” vs. govermental regulation (which becomes geography based) is very important. If you don’t understand these distinctions you may not serve the coaching profession well, no matter how good your intentions.
For instance, once a geographically contained entity establishes a regulation regarding a profession, it automatically creates restrictions in the marketplace regarding the practice of that profession. Imagine being a coach and not being able to coach in a particular country because of that countries regulations! Now multiply that by every major country in the world. Now coaching has been segmented and restrictions on “fair trade” imposed. The beginning of the end of coaching as we know it. Imposed scarcity on a profession based on and dedicated to abundance.
It will be a sad day.
Sincerely,
Tom
There needs to be a distinction made between regulation and standards.
In my view, setting some common standards for coaching certainly has a place, and may indeed assist clients from “weeding out the duds”. Most coaches would certainly work to some standards already.
However, I would have thought that regulation is something that would be very difficult to implement in the field of coaching. It is difficult to try and regulate what is essentially a relationship between 2 parties.
Unlike some other professions, coaching is measured on outcomes (results), which are always a shared responsibility between coach and coachee.
I can’t imagine how it would benefit the coach or the coachee to have that relationship regulated.
I have two questions:
i) Who will the guidelines be published by? Have I missed the obvious or has this not been stated?
ii) Who (specifically) was involved in the working group and more importantly, who (specifically) was not?
Nothing is good or bad in or of itself and this initiative is no exception. Some will see it as good, others will see it as bad. I see both sides and applaud you on your work and also express some caution for what it may lead to!
Regarding “the cream floating to the top”… in my experience, the market seems to do this very effectively. Although, I do see the functionality of regulation, until now, I have not seen any personal need to get “regulated” myself. The only regulation I’ve been tempted to undergo is that of the IAC, and this only because it offers such an opportunity for deep learning. If regulation enhances the quality of learning, I’ll support it. But if it just becomes a pain in the neck, an opportunity for government bureaucrats who just have no idea to exert control, it may just place unnecessary limitations on the great potential of coaching.
Kerryn Griffiths
ReciproCoach
Reciprocal peer coaching, mentoring and supervision
http://www.ReciproCoach.com
Ruth Ann was spot on! And I Quote: “Imagine your government eventually telling you who you MUST coach, and the people you MAY NOT coach. If you can imagine it, a government can do it.
If coaching moves to government regulation willingly, it will be admitting that coaches are incapable of reasonable cooperation to establish self-regulation.”
The worst thing that can ever happen to the coaching profession is any form of regulation.
I addition what can possibly be regulated in the true coaching process? That the coach listens according to prescribed regulations? That the coach reveals the truth to clients according to prescribed regulations? That the coach assists clients to achieve coachable goals that meet prescribed regulations? That the coach only accept clients that meet prescribed regulations? That the coach follow some governmentally dictated prescribed agenda and program?
I truly question the motivation and perspective of Ms. Parrish when she said:
“I would love to see regulation,” said Parrish. “Regulation is a good thing and is good practice. These guidelines may be a large step towards regulation and have provided a great forum for lots of debate—but there is still a large void between guidelines and a regulator.”
It appears she has made herself the organizer and architect of the regulations in order to become the regulator. Power!
The state of Colorado attempted to regulate certain types of coaching by placing personal and life coaching under the control of the Therapy regulations, because one Colorado bureaucrat with a personal vendetta was seeking to enlarge his power by controlling a segment of coaching. Luckily cooler and more pragmatic heads prevailed, and his attempt was blocked.
Australia will not become the leader in coaching by imposing regulations. Instead, Australia will create a overburdened regulated group of limited thinkers who will be more concerned about the effects of regulations, rules and government fees than about their clients. Everyone will suffer.
If you want to see the affects of more and more governmental regulations and intrusions into your business, just look at the economy of the US today.
Kristine Reis is also on target. Setting high coaching standards is important for the industry. Creating governmental regulations to control any part of coaching is much different and almost impossible, because “It is difficult to try and regulate what is essentially a relationship between 2 parties.”
Very good points Bill, we are allies in a great cause. But I have one concern.
You say:
”
The worst thing that can ever happen to the coaching profession is any form of regulation.
”
This thinking actually invites government regulation, the thing you say you don’t want. “Self regulation” is a viable alternative.
Standards without enforcement is meaningless and will have no credibility in the marketplace. If the coaching profession does not enforce its own standards, then other “forces” in the world will fill the void that will be there from the coaching profession’s omission.
I believe this is a reality that needs to be faced and if that reality is not faced, it will be at our own peril.
Credentialing is a part of self regulation. So is having a mechanism to enforce an ethical code. There are organizations doing the work. We should learn more about what they are doing. Support them in any way we can, and help the profession of coaching define itself so that definition does not come from those who might not understand or have the best interests of the coaching profession in mind.
Sincerely,
Tom
For some reason I’ve taken a shine to that phrase “weeding out the duds.” It has a gospel song quality. Wasn’t it used in the movie Elmer Gantry?
Australia needs less regulation between consenting adults, not more. Maybe the on-going drought in the country is causing dehydration which typically is accompanied by diminished brain functioning.
There’s a reason the plaque on Lady Liberty in New York’s harbor says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses…” and doesn’t also include, “your regulated.”
Hey, and there’s no “r” in “coach.” Although maybe some of the duds spell it that way. As in, “Three days ago I couldn’t even spell coach, now I r one.
(With apologies to Kerryn for trying my hand at a stand-up routine.)
Hehehehe…
diminished brain functioning… come down here for a little bit of diminished brain functioning Rey 
You’ll find it does the world of good!
Alas we are over-regulated down here – they get a little over-zealous… they need to keep all the public servants in jobs…. we have a lot of them down here you see.
Kerryn
PS. Rey, see you on youtube!
First, thanks to Mark for writing this up, and thank goodness for the Coaching Commons!
I’d had an inkling of the developments and a couple of brief email exchanges with colleagues but the ramifications are only now sinking in.
I am concerned that the idea of guidelines is getting bundled with the idea of regulation, with a clear implication that *government* regulation is a desirable objective.
I don’t have a fundamental objection to guidelines and if there must in due course to be regulation (a proposition with which I do not actually concur) I believe that would be best done by self-regulation by reputable bodies (and not on some “one size fits all” basis).
As a former senior Australian public servant (Prime Minister & Cabinet, NSW Premier’s, etc etc) and a coach and former member of the Board of Governors of the International Association of Coaching, I understand the desire of many quite well-intentioned people in various fields of endeavour (not just coaching) to have government regulation in their particular areas.
I used to be much more in favour of it than I am now.
And we need to recognise and acknowledge that in Australia we have a long-standing “aorta” tradition (as in “aorta (ie they, the gummint oughta) do something about it” (i.e. make rules, then tougher rules, then tougher penalties).
In this regard, I am seriously bothered by the quoted statement by Ms Parrish that “regulation is a good thing”. It may well be that we need to have a conversation about regulation, but we as Australian coaches should be quite concerned at this indication that someone leading this charge is at least on the face of it committed unequivocally to regulation and especially concerned if that means government regulation.
And with respect too to my good friend Noel Posus, I have to say am not surprised that there is fear. Fear of itself is not a bad thing. If I see a bus heading for me I want to have enough fear not to get run over. I think part of the problem here, from my reading of this article, is that Noel is talking about guidelines (where I see room for sensible discussion) whereas Ms Parrish is seeing the guidelines as paving the way to regulation – and exulting in that, which bothers me greatly.
Who will do the regulation? One or other other of the existing coaching bodies? Or the government? And would that be Federal or State/Territory government? Or local government? Some serious questions to be answered here.
I am not fearful of guidelines and I trust Noel will not see my comments as “political posturing”.
I am fearful of the potentially harmful and even destructive implications of regulation.
I have great respect for the *profession* of the public service, both State and Federal, in this country, as I do for the *profession* of coaching, but all my experience in life and especially in government tells me that it will be the narrow-minded politicians and public servants, those fundamentally ignorant of coaching but convinced of their own righteousness who will win the arguments of narrow vs broad interpretations when it comes to the crunch. I can just hear it “We really must be very careful, Minister, and these regulations will keep the shonks from doing any harm”.
And thus we get a new Coaching Regulation Agency, where some at least of the staff will be, shall we say, less than totally enlightened about the finer points of coaching.
Presumably this will be seen as a State matter, so each State and Territory will have its own Coaching Regulation Agency, no doubt in the fine old colonial tradition of different regulations and requirements from one jurisdiction to another and endless discussions by officials at the Council of Australian Government ministerial gatherings, until the Feds eventually decide to set up a National Coaching Accreditation and Regulation Authority.
But never fear. With all those agencies, there will be advisory boards. And guess who will sit on the advisory boards (besides the political cronies and donors who haven’t quite merited seats on the really important, really powerful government boards – thanks for the reminder, Ruth Ann)? Why, coaches of course. So there will be travel, sitting fees and the opportunity to oversee who gets inside the tent and who is kept out. Not to mention the chance to settle a few old scores.
If that sounds like I spent too long in government, that could well be right, but I have seen my share of otherwise good, well-intentioned people getting co-opted in this way and then getting to love the exercise of power and losing sight of the original aims.
Friends (if I may borrow a favoured term of global affection from our Prime Minister), please read some Australian history. Especially read Manning Clark on the two groups in our history, a) the enlargers, and b) the punishers and straighteners. Who is willing to bet it won’t be the latter group who get to manage the regulation of coaches?
Believe me, management and enforcement in this area of regulation, should it come to pass, will not be the responsibility of the brightest, wisest, most far-seeing of the public servants. And as Ruth Ann points out, once the regulatory regime is in place (with attendant “cost-recovering” revenue regime) it will not be removed in our lifetimes or those of the next generation.
Even “guidelines” are risky although manageable. As a senior exec in one State government agency I once asked a staff member why we could not support an activity in the area for which we were responsible via a grants program. “We can’t do that” he said. “Why not?” I asked. “It’s outside the guidelines” he said. “And who wrote the guidelines?” I asked. “We did”, he said. He was quite indignant at the idea that we might amend something that clearly wasn’t working and was in our power to amend. And he was actually one of the brighter sparks.
Beware the propensity of guidelines to encourage and justify inertia and contribute to the slow death of good policy and good practice.
Listen to Ruth Ann. She has done the hard yards, supporting coaching with real commitment and real money. She has forgotten more about the realities of coaching than most have learnt and she knows how government works.
By all means, let’s have a proper, Australia-wide conversation about this. So where is the website for that? Where is the Twitter account? Where is the Facebook page? Hello, it’s 2010 and the Prime Minister is on Twitter.
As for the international aspect. Yes, there are international ramifications. And if you think about how these things work, government officials, both the elected representatives and the public servants, compare notes and copy legislation and regulations internationally.”Oh, look what the Australians have done, why don’t we do that here and that way we can be seen to be doing something to protect people?”
Coaches in other countries should not be complacent. I am surprised to learn from Noel’s statement that the international coaching community’s spotlight is upon us in this matter (or any other, frankly). If it is, well and good: if not, I hope it will be. I hope our colleagues in other countries will see this as an issue that potentially affects them and their professional practices and will weigh in. It is not just an Australian conversation.
And I would seriously dispute the suggestion that development of worthwhile guidelines cannot be conducted internationally.
Having been part of the international group which worked voluntarily to develop the IAC Coaching Masteries, I know that it may be a challenge, but with good will and the commitment of knowledgeable, masterful coaches, it is amazingly possible to produce something which works across geographic and cultural oceans.
By the way, the “local ICF chapter” is “on board”. What does that mean? Is that the Australasia Chapter? Have they been part of the working group? Is their being “on board” an endorsement? And if there is any suggestion of advancing the cause of government regulation, how does that sit with the ICF International policy stance: “The ICF takes a policy stand for professionalism and self-governance in coaching” http://www.coachfederation.org/about-icf/ethics-&-regulation/.
And has anyone thought to involve the International Association of Coaching? Formally?
Guidelines? Sure. I am all in favour of guidelines. But if that’s what we want, let’s have a proper discussion.
Maybe once we have agreement on guidelines we could have a separate conversation about self-regulation.
And hopefully we will agree that government regulation is neither required nor desirable.
Ruth Ann puts it so well: “If we can’t meet the challenge of regulating ourselves without ceding authority and control to a government, it is an admission that coaches and coaching are not capable of producing solutions.”
Hear, hear!