ICF Credentialing Process: Reactions to Proposed Changes?

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 flog, 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.

Susan-
I hear in your question that you think it would have been a better approach if the Board had said to the membership, “We are considering making improvements to the ICF credentialing process so please tell us what you think we should do?” And I guess that it could have been done that way.

I believe that an equally valid approach is to do some homework first and come up with a proposal with some but not all of the details worked out so the membership has something concrete to consider and respond to. Although I was not on the Board when the process of considering improvements to the credentialing process began, I believe this is the approach that the Board decided to take.

Personally and from my experience in many similar situations over the years, I think either approach can work well so long as the decision makers have an open mind and do not get so attached to their own proposal that they do not hear all of their stakeholders’ comments, especially the ones that oppose the proposal. Equally important in our case is for ICF’s members to believe that their comments will be heard and will have an impact on the Board’s decision making process. I hope that the many dialogues I have been having both on the Internet and by phone lead our members to conclude that your comments are important to me. I know that all of the other Board members are also listening intently.
Ed Modell

Ed,

With all due respect, what should have happened is that at least the credentialed membership should have been approached with a. any number of plausible proposals for revamping the credentialing system, including but not limited to just ISO, with an organized means of having as many members as possible participate in discussions about all of them until a clear consensus emerged about a direction to head, or b. the opportunity to participate in discussions to revamp the credentialing system starting from scratch. To have presented the membership with what has the appearance of being a fait accompli, with inadequate explanations of what ISO actually is or its implications, conveys the message that the board has been operating in a vacuum. You simply forgot, or didn’t realize, that your complete familiarity with something you’d been working on for months wasn’t ours, and took for granted that the membership would go along, with perhaps a few suggestions here and there. That you didn’t anticipate the current controversy is proof that the board is essentially out of touch, and has been for some time.

I’d also like to point out that not everyone who’s an ICF member belongs to a chapter, so disseminating information through chapters isn’t going to reach everyone. I founded the chapter in Orlando when I was living there, but I currently live in central New Jersey and there is no chapter anywhere near me (and no, I’m not interested in founding another one . The first time I heard anything about the ISO proposal was on an assessor call a couple of months ago, yet I’m one of the original co-founders of ICF and had a lot of input into the current credentialing system. It’s unfortunate that many of us who constitute the history and knowledge base of the organization were approached far too late in the process to be of help.

In short, the current controversy is symptomatic of a far larger problem, and that is that the board has become a closed system operating without much input or feedback from the membership, the credentialed membership in particular. As we address credentialing let’s also address ways and means of getting back to what many here and elsewhere have called for–an open, inclusive organization that lives and breathes the values of what attracted all of us to coaching in the first place.

Joan T. Cook, MCC

Rey-
A summary of all comments from all sources is in the works but it’s a pretty massive job. The Board will have it and there are plans to share it with everyone to make sure we have captured everything that anyone wants the Board to hear. This may not be done until several weeks from now so I ask for your patience.
Ed Modell

Ed indicates that summarizing would be a “massive undertaking.” Here’s a simple solution: Outsource the job to PWC. They’ve already done other jobs for the ICF with the surveys. I’m sure they could handle this task and actually get it right this time.

I resonated with Joan’s comments.

In our core competencies, Section B is headed “Co-creating the Relationship” and the two competencies under that heading are “Establishing Trust and Intimacy with the Client”, and “Coaching Presence”. I am still in admiration of the authors of our competencies, to capture this wisdom in such a way. I see that currently we, being ICF member coaches, are the client of the ICF Board.

Some have already pointed out that “co-creating the relationship” is what sets us apart from other professions, and I think it could be called one of our essential pillars or core values. If we truly embraced that essential pillar, then everyone operating in an official capacity for the ICF would be embracing that and living that in how they interact with all members. It would be an embedded part of our culture. We’d be encouraging each ICF member to express themselves from that essential pillar and calling it out when we weren’t living that.

Imagining this was the core culture that we were living from the beginning of this process, this may have been what we experienced:

• There was a gap presenting itself in the level of professional excellence of delivering the credentialing process. The membership, which could have been a member coach, a Board member, the Assessor team, a Chapter leader or member….someone or some group within our membership that noticed this. There would have been a transparent way that such ideas were brought to the Board, where they weren’t rejected.
•An open dialogue would have occurred with the membership about this gap, if it did exist, and then defining it. The Board – who are simply the voices for all member coaches – would have been given the go ahead to further engage with membership and explore options on our behalf.
• There would have been as many options as possible thought of, sought from the membership, and the pros and cons of each listed.
• The list of options would have been available for comment from all member coaches, with responses transparently available for all to see via a Yahoo Group or a Blog. There would have been teleconference calls that further discussed what was showing up on the Yahoo group or blog. New insights and information would have been added to the options and pros/cons. All member coaches would be informed of the updates and asked to revisit.
• Once if felt that this process was exhausted, there would have been a vote by the membership as to their top option/s.
• The results of that vote were transparently given to all members – numbers of votes per options.
• The top 2-3 options would be further compared and explored.
• Further discussions with membership until one option was agreed as the path forward.

I get excited just writing out the above, as I know I would have been honored as a stakeholder and we would have called on more of the brilliance that exists within our credentialed coaches and member coaches. The Board would be operating in alignment with the unique profession that we are, and embracing our core culture of co-creation, and of relationship.

If this is a core culture of ours: Co-creating the Relationship, then how might I apply it to where we are currently. Here is my best guess:
• The Board acknowledges that they forgot they were here to represent all member coaches and that they were operating as a traditional board, not operating from our cultural essence – a co-creative approach.
• They place a complete stop on any further actions being taken toward ISO or one credential.
• They take a deep breath and tell us exactly how much of our membership fees have been spent to date going down these paths, so we get a reality check.
• We embrace the Board as being human beings doing their best.
• Engage in the process I outlined above from the second bullet point.

Okay, so I’m energized!

Carly Anderson, MCC

Carly,

Well said. Thank you, and thanks to Michael too.

Joan

Joan T. Cook, MCC

I was thinking in the shower this morning (I do some of my best thinking in the shower) that with all of the focus on needed improvements to the credentialing system we run the risk of losing sight of the fact that an ICF credential is still the gold standard for the coaching profession. And so I want to simply express my gratitude to everyone who has had a hand in developing our credentialing system these past 10 years or so. Since it’s impossible for me to name all of the names, I want to thank the prior Board members, officers and staff, our past and present credentialing committee members, anyone who has worked as an assessor and all of the coach volunteers who have participated in task forces and study groups and surveys, and everyone who has earned an ICF credential and has done great coaching so that consumers now know to ask for ICF credentialed coaches when they are looking to hire the best coaches in the world.
Ed Modell

On 10/30, Carly Anderson asked how much the ICF has spent on the credentialing initiative so far. That seems like a reasonable question and it’s interesting that it is only in this, late phase of the discussion that it has come up.

Can ICF members expect to hear how much of the ICF budget has been spent to date on the “exploratory” phase of this project?

Thanks,

Jonathan Sibley

Have we (the credentialing committee, board of directors, and other
members of the ICF) now begun to move from “not knowing what we don’t
know” to “knowing what we don’t know”?

If so, at what point do we realize that the significance of what we
don’t know is great enough to warrant making an explicit commitment to
take the necessary time to do the research required for a more complete
solution? I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that we have
reached that point.

I participated on the ICF Nov 3 credentialing call and this is what I came away with:

- There is very little, if any, knowledge of how oral exams will be
addressed under the new credentialing system. There doesn’t appear to be
a plan to address shortages of assessors or an understanding of how oral
exams could fit into an ISO compliant credentialing process. There
appears to have been some thinking about a process where assessors would
need to take classes to be certified to assess and would charge for
their work as assessors. Has anyone looked at how much this, along with
paying for a proctored exam, would affect the cost of becoming
credentialed (or re-credentialed)?

- There does not appear to be a clear understanding about whether any
grandfathering can be allowed under an ISO-compliant credentialing
process. How could we market an ISO-compliant credentialing process
while allowing some coaches to be grandfathered under the same
credential without creating confusion in the marketplace or devaluing
the credential of those who did not follow the new ISO-compliant
process? Can a credentialing process that allows for grandfathering even
be approved by ISO?

- It sounds like there may be some question about whether to pursue
ISO-compliance or to use a process that is “almost ISO”. If there is a
decision not to pursue full ISO compliance, does it make sense to invest
in this particular standard at all? One can’t successfully market being
“almost compliant” with a quality-oriented standard.

We also know, from comments that have already been shared, that it
hasn’t been possible yet to develop questions that can reliably
distinguish among multiple levels of coaching knowledge. If, in fact, it
is in the written exam that one wants to make this distinction (and is
this the appropriate place to do so?), doesn’t this suggest that more
research would be helpful before rolling out this test?

As others have pointed out, there are many professions that have had to
create and revise credentialing processes. Many research papers have
been written about credentialing choices that have been made in these
professions. How much research has been done to look at specific
professions, the choices they have made, and how this might inform our
own choices?

At some point, doesn’t it make sense to realize that there are too many
unknowns, to say “we have more homework to do”, and to realize that
however well-intended the work until now, a lot more work is needed
before tackling a major overhaul of the current system?

The current system is not ideal and I am not arguing that we should embrace the status quo, simply because it is the status quo. I am, however, suggesting that it is becoming increasingly clear that we don’t understand the problems and potential solutions well enough to move straight to a radical overhaul of the current system.

Our field is still young and research is expanding at a significant rate. What if we were to take a step back and come up with a multi-year plan to find answers to those questions that require more research (and to be clear about what those questions are)? What if were to articulate more clearly the requirements for the new credentialing system? What if we did this while making incremental changes to the current system to address some of the problems that are already known and better understood (e.g., reducing bottlenecks in the current oral exam process)?

What I’m still really curous about, a top ten:
1. What really is the purpose of a credential as it applies to coaching? While it may seem obvious, I don’t have a clear sense of our motive for having one. Is it to present to the public for marketing purposes? Is it to outline a path of development for those in the profession? Is it to pre-empt any attempt by government to license and regulate our profession? Or is it to clarify and distinguish varying levels of efficacy in a profession we’ve called ‘coaching’? From all the dialogue about why we need an ISO this and bodies of knowledge that, I still don’t know what this is really for and to be honest, never REALLY asked. “Do we actually NEED a credential?” and while it may be a duh! for some it isn’t so obvious as I look to how i’ve built my business over the years and what my clients both personal and corporate have asked for.
2. I’m still curious about Carly’s question…”How much has already been spent on the exploration of a direction that is not a done deal? A little? A lot? Transparency will go a long way right now and it’s not insignificant that there has been a loss of trust in the leadership by members.
3. What are we as coaches really about? In the heart of things, are we co-creative and counting on client’s wisdom as we allege, or are we at heart, consultants seeking a vehicle for our expertise and by doing so, advocating the use of ‘experts’ even for our own processes instead of discovering something as yet unseen
4. What had this organization choose a traditional leadership structure in the first place? Are we so bereft of creativity and an ability to sense new models that we defaulted to something existing and are now trapped in the disconnect of a system that is inherently archaic in structure?
5. What has this whole pot stirring really taught us about ourselves and how we operate as individuals, as leaders, and as an organization? I know for myself it has taught me to speak up sooner, perhaps even while knowing my voice may generate pushback, it’s still important to my own integrity if I’m part of an organization, then I AM PART OF THE ORGANIZATION, and as such it’s my responsiblity to support the process AND when necessary be the grain of sand in the oyster. Otherwise, I’m simply behaving like a child wanting mom and dad to take care of things while I have cookies and oh by the way don’t disrupt my nap.
6. If we are to measure coaching, what are we truly measuring when we say someone ‘can coach to X level’? What’s become obvious to me that I may be in the minority of people who believe that you cannot measure coaching by a written exam EVER. You can measure someone’s ability to regurgitate data ABOUT coaching or their awareness of rules and ethics about coaching but coaching, is a human interaction and therefore, can only be measured LIVE…in the process of witnessing or being coached. Which leads me to the next question
7. What if we simply measured live and taped coaching and perhaps more of them, say 3 sessions total? Yes that can be labor intensive however, we’re smart people. I believe we can find a way to do that efficiently if we’re engaged in the question.
8. What will make an effective assessor? Since the range of coach training is all over the board, clearly some consistency is needed otherwise it’s all too variable and will produce a result no one wants to stand for.
9. What consequence are we experiencing as a result of having core competencies that are transactional rather than transformational? While I have no doubt that there are some coaches out there who believe more in transformation than transaction (myself as one of them) clearly our competencies are directed toward task, strategy, accountabilty (which I still think is disempoweringly parental) and the tools to facilitate the effective reaching of goals. Personally, I don’t care about that process anymore. People ALREADY KNOW how to get things done. That isn’t the issue (see the book “The Knowing Doing Gap” by Harvard Press if you need someone else’s word for it than mine) What often isn’t happening is the evolution of people. It is simply “set goals (substitute create a vision or strategy before as needed) define steps, clear obstacles, measure progress, be accountable, calibrate as needed, celebrate accomplishment, lather rinse repeat.
10. If we were to re-invent coaching from where we ALL are now, what would we keep, discard and innovate that would have what was once a bright light of possibility in pioneering and has now become mundane, ordinary and co-opted as a word by everyone from consultants seeking more business, to personal trainers, to astrologers, to massage therapists, to nutritionists.

Well, that’s it…oh, and Ed, by the way, I didn’t ignore your post, it’s just that most of it was answered except this last…
“I invite you to shift your perspective….and collaborate”

Well Ed…I invite you to shift YOUR perspective….because I believe what we’ve all been doing while posting our dissent, and challenges to the board IS collaboration. It just doesn’t look that way when what we’re experiencing is a subtle and not so subtle message of “This is what we’ve decided to pursue…what do you think”….All of which could have been avoided by a few simple inclusions of options such as “We’ve noticed the credentialling process isn’t ideal and as part of the upgrade of the process, THESE are SOME of the options we’re considering. Before we proceed and commit funds toward a more in depth exploration, we’d like to hear from you regarding these options and the challenges they’ve been designed to address.” The second communication is earlier in the process. BEFORE a path has been chosen and a business case built for it. The board still has not acknowledged that method of communication and it’s attendant consequences. One path presented…no inclusion. Multiple paths presented….smiley happy faces of feeling included.

Forgive me for going back to the very beginning and asking the question, “Why are we throwing the baby out with the bath water?” In other words, what is actually wrong with our current ACC / PCC and MCC 3 -tier credentialling system?

I actually think the processes work! The only thing that is a challenge is the very large jump in coaching hours required from PCC to MCC…by that’s my agenda – and I realise that.

So, at the risk of seeming silly…or as a devil’s advoccate…why change it at all?

Those who know me know I generally use very few words when I write. I plan to do the same here.

ISO standards are perfect for the manufacturing process. Coaching, on the other hand, is largely intuitive with some significant knowlege and training. ISO is absolutely silly when we are discussing the Coaching process or Coaching credentials.

I see this “decision (or discussion) of adopting a single coaching credential as tantamount to ICF committing suicide on behalf of itself and our profession.

Maybe (just maybe) the answer to this issue is too conclude that ICF can no longer be trusted as the guardian of the integrity of our profession. Maybe (just maybe) it is time for a group of respected and well known coaches to start a competing organization which would be dedicated to protecting and preserving the ACC, PCC, and MCC credentials.

Just a thought (or two)

Ken Zaretzky, MCC

As a followup to my last post, I would also suggest that ICF accredited coaching schools stop using the words certified, certification or credentialed when referring to graduates of their schools.

It would solve MUCH of the confusion if coaches who completed XYZ Coaching school’s curriculum were referred to as “graduates” instead.

Who on earth can be expected to know the difference between a CEC, CPCC, CTC, CAC, ACC, PCC, or MCC if the schools that issue them (which are ICF Accredited) and the people who have those letters after their name refer to them as “certified coaches”?

My assertion is that the ONLY certified coaches are those that hold ACC’s, PCC’s or MCC’s Period. Maybe it’s is time for the ICF to stop the confusion. Not to dismantle a credential that works well.

Ken Zaretzky, MCC

I’ve been thinking about both Jonathan’s and Michael’s posts and am wondering whether the concept of transactional vs. transformational coaching could be used as a methology of distinguishing between levels of coaches: something like, those coaches who do transactional coaching are ACCs; those who do transformational coaching are MCCs; those who are making the leap are PCCs.

Also wondering whether a written exam can’t be constructed that would discriminate among levels of coach ability. In general, if exams are constructed using a bell-shaped curve we would expect 20% of test takers to get As, 20% to get Fs and 60% to get Bs, Cs and Ds. I don’t know if this just describes the fact that some people are better test takers than others, or if questions could be constructed in ways that would discriminate between transactional and transformational test takers.

Susan Sussman

On behalf of the ICF Board of Directors, Karen Tweedie, President of ICF, has posted an open letter on the ICF blog to the letter from the ICF Coaches Take A Stand group. Here is the link to Karen’s open letter.
http://icfheadquarters.blogspot.com/?CFID=430293&CFTOKEN=21773296

I’m beginning to wonder if ICF is acting a bit like Bill Clinton when he said “it all depends on what the definition of ‘IS’ is”.

What does Karen Tweedie mean by “…the ‘ONLY’decision we made is that the credentialing program needs to be enhanced”?

What about hiring Pro Metric, and then having them create THREE iterations of a multiple choice test. (We still don’t know how much $$$$$$$$$$ was spent on any of this.)

Does this qualify as a “decision”?

(This is a copy of what I posted on the ICF blog site. I’m reposting a slightly amended version here since the Coaching Commons is really the key discussion venue for this issue.)

I have great sympathy for Karen. She’s in a tough position. It’s clear her intention is genuine and she is determined to guide the ICF successfully through its most controversial “public” issue.

But I wonder if Karen has become swallowed by the “happy face” appearance that has taken over all of the ICF’s publications over the last few years.

Why not, for example, in her letter above summarize the feedback received so far?

Why not explain this obsession with “international standards” and make a compelling case for how this is beneficial to members and coaching?

In explaining the Board’s assessment of the shortcomings of the current credentialing system, Karen’s letter doesn’t provide a connection that goes from resolving these easily solvable dilemmas to even placing ISO in the ballpark.

I admit I’m highly biased: ISO is completely the wrong direction to be pursue for enhancing the credibility of the credential or the efficiency of the credentialing process.

What might have been more useful in Karen’s letter is an explanation of what other options were reviewed and rejected. Also I wish I understood what Ed meant when he indicated Karen’s letter had anything to do with the “Coaches Take a Stand” letter. I don’t see the connection.

A better communication strategy for the ICF might be to assist ICF members to support their own elected officers by sharing the path of their Board considerations rather than forcing members to make leaps in logic, discern mysterious rationale, or attribute erroneous intentions to the ICF leadership.

November 17, 2009 6:25 PM

ICF Coaches Take a Stand is evaluating next steps and would like to follow up with those who signed the original letter and are willing to be contacted directly.

So, if you have signed the letter and are interested in receiving emails about ongoing efforts and, potentially, becoming more involved, please send an email to:

icfcoaches@icfcoachestakeastand.org

with the subject heading: Contact Me

Thanks,

Jonathan Sibley

I think I understand better the ICF response (or lack of response) to this issue after reading Barbara Ehrenreich’s new book: “Bright-Sided.” She makes a convincing case against “positive thinking” which she describes as creating “collective mass delusion.”

While I fought hard to reject her premise that things like the law of attraction and other positive thought/emotion oriented systems were responsible for much agony and despair in American society, I could see how the ICF’s “happy face” policy has led them to delude themselves about the strategy of ISO as a way to bring nirvana to credentialism.

Seeing the world only through happy glasses does not adequately manage the total reality and often misses key points that require a take on the bigger picture. This lack of clear vision on the part of the ICF may also be the reason why they have never mentioned or discussed the impact of the loss of 20% of their membership this year. This seems like it should have been a lead article in their newsletter as a way of forecasting what might be ahead for members and the coaching world.

I request that we keep The Coaching Commons website as the forum to gather coaches feedback….as soon as we are invited to comment in several areas there is a danger of blogging overload and missing important concepts due to ’site-travelling’. I don’t have the time, inclination or energy to follow this debate through several rabbit warren tunnels! I prefer exploring those with my clients in person, while coaching.
With one forum it is time efficient and simple.

If you have already signed the “ICF Coaches Take a Stand Letter” (and if you haven’t, I’m sure it’s not too late), want to continue to be involved, and haven’t already sent your email address so that you can be contacted (we want to respect everyone’s privacy), there is now a place for you to provide your contact information:

http://icfcoachestakeastand.org/index.php?en_resources

A summary of comments made through November 17, 2009 regarding the ICF credentialing proposal is now available through the ICF web site blog. Here is the link to it.
http://icfheadquarters.blogspot.com/2009/11/summary-of-comments-regarding-icf.html#more
From there, you can download a 5-page summary document and a 92-page compilation of actual comments from all sources, including this thread and the one on LinkedIn. The summary document indicates that additional comments will be considered through January 8, 2010. The intent is for all comments to be considered, including those on this thread. The blog also gives the times for four more open teleconference calls scheduled during December.

I appreciate ICF creating this compilation and the summary. Since I’ve read most of the posts on LinkIn, Coaching Commons, and the ICF blog, I didn’t slog my way through the 94 page compilation. I only read the 5 page summary.

Here’s what jumped out at me: All of the categories listed pertain to ISO and the number of credentials. What about all the comments about transparency, governance, not feeling heard, and the direction of ICF? Since they aren’t included in the summary, does that mean the board is ignoring them?

This conversation was started by the ISO proposal, but it’s grown into something more. I hope the board is seeing the full breadth of this discussion. If not, they will have missed a golden opportunity.

I have to agree with Philip. I think that “process” deserves a place of it’s own in the high-level summary.

A number of comments and questions have to do with things like:

- Why did the process get so far (up to an announcement of a plan to move forward) before getting more feedback from the membership of ICF?

- Shouldn’t we be clear about the specific problems we are trying to address before soliciting feedback and choosing a solution?

- Shouldn’t we be clear about the problems that have been identified and that are not yet being addressed?

- If oral exams have been identified as a bottleneck, shouldn’t we know how they are going to be addressed going forward?

And there are more process issues that have come up.

Also, I’m nervous about the heading that includes “misunderstandings” about the ISO process. While there may be misunderstandings about ISO and how it would apply, I sincerely hope the board does not write off potentially valid concerns and questions as “misunderstandings”. One of the advantages of getting feedback from others is to recognize our own potential misunderstandings, as well.

As executive coaches (and in some other coaching, as well) we often help our clients to recognize and overcome their blind spots. It’s my impression that we keep running into some of the same apparent blind spots on the behalf of the ICF leadership – for example, in terms of how their communication is likely to be perceived. Let’s hope that there are plans to recognize and address this going forward.

Critical to what had been discussed and moving forward:
* what lessons can we learnt about ‘leading & managing change’?
* what ‘damage recoveries’ could be undertaken by ICF, if any?
* what would be the next appropriate steps to be taken by ICF so as to re-position ICF to its status quo as the premier and gold standard Institution for coaching credentialling and the coaching profession?
* how can ICF engages all stakeholders concerned without discounting herself?
* what would be the ‘evidences & actions’ required that would not compromise ICF’s position but concurrently is fair to concerned stakeholders?
* what would the stakeholders concerned need to do, in order to give fair credence to ICF to resolve this issue?
* who is hearing whose side of the story?

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

The following post represents my own opinions and perspectives, despite the fact that I refer to the Association of Coach Training Organizations at times.

I am writing these comments from my perspective as a leader of an ICF Accredited Coach Training program and the immediate past-president of the Association of Coach Training Organizations (ACTO; which has more than 44 coach training member schools). I have served on ACTO’s board for over four years and was the President for two years.

I would like to thank the elected leadership and the professional staff of ICF for tackling some of the issues related to the credentialing process. Although there are differing opinions on how to proceed, from the perspective of how the administration of the credentialing process has evolved over the years it is clear that the professional staff has made significant strides in providing information to prospective applicants, responding to applicants’ questions, and in general creating a more professional process. I would also like to thank the ICF elected leadership for listening to the feedback from the membership, keeping open minds to help come up with the best decisions for our membership and profession, and for allowing more input into this decision than any other ICF credentialing decision in the past. Finally I would like to thank the people who started the Take a Stand petition – they have facilitated the creation of a more open discussion of ICF proposed changes than has occurred ever before.

Much of the discussion on this list has been about the cons of switching to a single credential and about how the decision-making and communication process is being handled. Because much has been shared on those topics I will concentrate on two different topics – the impact on potential credentialing applicants in the pipeline and the need to seek and act on early input from major stakeholders.

Specifically, let’s look at the impact of proposed changes on:

· Individuals who are currently in training,

· Individuals who are currently contemplating beginning coach training, or

· Individuals who have completed training and are in the process of gathering hours towards certification.

These are the individuals that have made or are making decisions about obtaining training based at least in part on information provided by ICF on the linkage between training, documenting hours of experience, and ICF certification.

Related to this, I will also comment on the importance to ICF’s decision making process of implementing a formal process of obtaining and considering input from appropriate sources before voting on and adopting decisions of major importance. As I have mentioned it appears this is beginning to be done, but what is most important is how thoughtfully the input gathering process continues and how carefully and wisely final decisions will need to be made.

My overarching concern is that ICF act in a manner that is fair and ethical for these students who are “in the pipeline”. My current opinion is that the ICF leadership has not yet presented an execution plan for their proposal that meets the fair and ethical benchmark.

A fair and ethical proposal benchmark for a transition process would be one that allows individuals a significant and reasonable amount of time to complete credentialing under the conditions that ICF advertised when the decision to pursue training and to seek the ICF credential was initially made.

I was re-reading Robert Hargrove’s Masterful Coaching recently and he emphasized that the first step in a change process is providing maximum, open information. In that spirit I would like to add a little bit of history into the discussion.

In May 2008 and April 2009, the ICF professional staff leadership, over two dozen representatives of Accredited Coach Training Schools, and an ICF board member met to discuss issues related to high quality coach training and ICFs efforts to create an ISO compliant credential. At these meetings ACTO leaders and members expressed consistent concern about a number of issues: the wisdom of pursuing an ISO compliant credential because there was not history of this process being used with a similar helping profession; specific impacts to students that could be anticipated due to changes that were being discussed; and, in particular, the need for ICF to provide schools and students adequate advance notification of changes in credentialing or curriculum requirements in order to give students and schools sufficient time to adapt.

I repeatedly asked that the proposals for credentialing changes be shared with the leaders of the coaching schools before the July 2009 board meeting (where it was decided that the “proposal” would move forward for “an implementation plan and testing”) so that the board would have the benefit of the school leaders’ perspectives (who are informed by day to day contact with thousands of coaching students from around the world.) We were told that this would not be possible because such recommendations would not be crafted with enough time for input before the board meeting. I countered that this is backwards – that the ICF board needs the input of school leaders before they vote on developing an implementation plan for a major proposal, not just after. In my experience the school leaders are devoting much of their lives to doing the best job possible of training coaches and have a strong desire to be helpful to ICF decision makers. School leaders were told by the ICF leadership that the needs of the students and applicants for credentialing in the pipeline would be taken into account.

As a result of this assurance the majority of the ACTO leaders were surprised when, in an August 3, 2009 conference call, the ICF professional staff leadership and an ICF boardmember explained that the proposal (which was voted on by the ICF board in their July 2009 meeting) specified an April 2010 date to end the current credentialing application process, and a probable July 2010 start date for the new, single credential process.

We were also surprised that the new credential that was proposed to launch in July 2010 would require 180 hours of coach specific training whereas the current ICF Accredited Coach Training Programs (of which there are more than 60) have as a guideline the requirement of 125 hours of training. The practical impact of this would be that the vast majority of students applying for credentialing would need to acquire 55 more hours of training in order to apply for their credentials if they did not have their 750 hours of coaching experience completed before the new credential requirements went into effect. Since it takes the average new coach approximately four years to obtain 750 hours of experience, and because there are at least 3,000 – 4,000 prospective coach applicants in the pipeline, the impact on thousands of coaches would be the need for a considerable additional training investment that they had not planned on.

ACTO leaders immediately went into action and composed a detailed letter outlining specific concerns and recommendations to the proposal. The good news is that by the time that ICF released their “proposal” to the larger membership (after sharing it with different committees and stakeholder groups) they had gotten the message about the problem of such an aggressive transition date. I am appreciative that ICF decision makers did respond to the input from ACTO (and probably others) that if the enormous changes were going to be implemented, then more time would be needed before the current credentialing window would end. (If you want to view the letter from ACTO to ICF go to: http://www.acto1.com/LetterICF.pdf You will note that in that letter the school leaders do not dispute the idea of going to one credential – I think that is largely because it appeared to us that this decision had already been made and we were told that the proposal would go forward as is unless very significant reasons not to were uncovered in the “testing phase”, i.e. comments from the membership.)

However, the 18 months to two years that is currently being talked about as a phase-in period is still too short, because thousands of coaches would still not have had enough time to acquire their 750 coaching experience hours before the changes go into effect, so that would mean these coaches would be required to obtain fifty-five hours of additional training at their own expense.

My recommendation, and ACTO’s recommendation, is that IF the proposed changes are to be implemented then the current path to credentialing must be kept open for four years after the decision is finalized in order to allow a fair and ethical process for coaches currently on the credentialing path. This way these students will be able to earn their credential under the guidelines that were in place when they made their decision to pursue training and ICF credentialing.

Another important issue that must be addressed is the proposed increase in required hours of coach training. There is no evidence to warrant increasing the required coach training hours from the existing 125 to 180. A 44% increase in required training will be an expensive increase for coaching students already undertaking extra training. Such a cost should not be imposed unless there is overwhelmingly compelling evidence that the change is necessary. There is no evidence that the current ACTPs were not training coaches to a level of competence with the requirement of 125 hours of coach specific training.

While ICF has been promoting the idea of evidence based decision-making, this increase to 180 hours of training proposal appears arbitrary and was never discussed with ACTO in advance of the ICF board voting for this increase. It may be argued that the emerging “body of knowledge” will require the additional 55 hours of coach training. I disagree. Most of the coach training students in our program already have Master or Doctoral level degrees in Organizational Leadership, Organizational Psychology, Psychology, or Human Resources. As a result, many are already familiar with much of the body of knowledge content when they begin our training program even though they may not be familiar with, or practiced in, the eleven ICF core coaching competencies.

Again, in the spirit of evidence based decision-making, it is important that there be compelling evidence for the necessity of such a costly increase in the training requirement. That burden of evidence has not been met to my satisfaction.

My intention in sharing this background on the initial April 2010 cutoff date is that this aspect of the proposal was ill-conceived – as can be seen by logical analysis and the subsequent changes. Because ICF leaders were repeatedly told by school leaders that a much longer lead time is needed for major changes and because this advice was not heeded before the July 2009 ICF board vote it highlights the need that before the ICF board votes on decisions of major importance that a more formal, early process of input and dialogue should be implemented.

I am hopeful that the current discussion will ensure that increased input, dialogue and co-creation from multiple sources at an early date (before proposals are created), will become the standard in the future and that a much greater lead time will be provided to students and schools when major changes are considered to meet the benchmark of a fair and ethical implementation timeline.

I am also hopeful that this post is taken as helpful and constructive as that is my intention. I express my gratitude to all who have the taken the time to comment and work toward the best decision possible.

Sincerely,

Jeff Auerbach, Ph.D., MCC President, College of Executive Coaching

Jeff,

Thank you so much for providing such detailed additional context.

I don’t remember the details, but it was my impression that at least once I heard or read from someone involved in the credentialing decision that the ISO solution was supported by ACTO. It was my impression that ACTO’s “support” was used to bolster the case for the proposal as it stood.

If I am remembering this correctly, it sounds like any implication of full support, without reservation, by ACTO would have been misleading and inaccurate.

It’s possible that I misinterpreted something I heard, but did anyone else have the impression that ACTO stood fully behind the credentialing proposal and, if so, do you remember how you came to this conclusion?

Jonathan. Nothing wrong with your memory regarding ACTO comments about their active support of the ISO move by the ICF. On page 9 of the summarized comments provided by the ICF, comment 1882 is titled: “ACTO supports the ICF’s move toward an ISO-based credentialing process.” Their comment then goes on to further the ICF ISO DECISION as if it were already made. There are over 45 references to ACTO in the summary document.

Yes, thanks Jeff, for the additional context. And if you notice, Jonathan and Rey, the current ACTO president and at least 2 former ACTO presidents have signed the Letter to the ICF Board on the http://www.icfcoachestakeastand.org website. So, I would have to agree that it appears misleading at best to proclaim or even indicate full ACTO support.

Another interesting point – I was just listening again to the recordings of the Assessor meetings on September 15th. I was confused about the purpose of the call and asked, “I don’t quite understand the whole purpose, because if the decision has been made already, is the purpose of this discussion and further discussions only in crafting the message of how an already – a fait accompli will be executed?”
To which Pat Matthews, Credentialing Chair, responded, “The Board has made the decision based on all of the, you know, the studies and the role delineation study, the test specification task force, the research that’s been done etc. to move to the single credential. So that decision has been made by the Board. The details of, you know, how it gets rolled out, whether there’s an additional credential, the training hours, you know, some of the details of it are up for review and comment. The decision, as I understand it from the Board, is not. You know, that’s done. I mean that’s been made.”

It sounds a lot like the quote from Karen Tweedie’s email to Barbara Luther quoted in Mark Joyella’s article. Talking with a Board member shortly after the call, I learned that s/he was on the call. That Board member said nothing to contradict what Pat said – in fact, that Board member said nothing at all on the call. So none of us knew at the time that a Board member was present – perhaps there was more than one Board member there.

For those of you who did not attend the 2009 ICF Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida, the video of the credentialing forum hosted by 2009 ICF President Karen Tweedie and President-Elect Giovanna D’Alessio is available through the ICF web site. Here is the link, which you may need to copy and paste into your web browser.
\ http://www.coachfederation.org/articles/index.cfm?action=view&articleID=593&menuID=0

ICF Coaches Take A Stand Looks to the Future

Check out the new Coaching Commons post at http://coachingcommons.org/featured/update-from-icf-coaches-take-a-stand/ to view some options identified with regard to ICF credentialing and governance.

Please include your comments, ideas and options for the future.

Vikki Brock
Participant
http://www.icfcoachestakeastand.org

I’m reminded of the Einstein’s statement that “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it”.

It’s my impression that there is a persistent theme of concern about the ICF leadership’s internal processes that brought us all to the point of

- a proposal being put forward that generated so many questions and so much disagreement, even among former ICF leaders, assessor, etc.

- a perceived, at least partial, entrenchment by at least some ICF leaders in the ideas originally put forward.

Where does the Einstein quote fit in? I believe that until there is explicit evidence that the ICF leadership (and not just one or two members of the leadership) realizes that internal decision-making processes need to be evaluated and improved, and perhaps until there are explicit demonstrations of the new processes, there will be continued dissatisfaction and concern among some ICF members.

There are moves in this direction. Soliciting more feedback, in more ways, and more publicly is a good first step.

However, I think it makes sense that people would still wonder what will happen in the Boardroom and behind the scenes that will be significantly different from what has happened leading up to the current events – that people would wonder, “what has the ICF leadership learned about itself over the past several months?” There may have been brilliant, private observations about internal process and the functioning of the board and its advisers – or perhaps not. How would we know?

As Jeffrey Jones recently wrote, this is not about questioning the intentions of the leadership, but about ability. I’ll add that it isn’t about the potential of the leadership, but about the previous (and, potentially, current) level of ability as explicitly demonstrated and communicated.

As we know, even high-potential leaders at the most senior levels of leadership can have blind-spots and risk derailment. If this weren’t the case, there would be many fewer executive coaches.

Perhaps we need to wait to see what happens in the next Board meeting and how the outcomes are communicated, but I think many of us are waiting for clear evidence that internal processes are being evaluated and improved.

Good governance, transparency and trust. Giovanna and I get that this is what these many posts and several threads are about, and not just the credentialing proposal. We recognize that it is behaviors and actions that create and build good governance, transparency and trust. The ICF Board will not be holding its next meeting until January 20-23, however we want everyone who has been and is following this thread of comments to know that we intend to demonstrate by our actions that you have been heard. And we want all ICF members and ICF credentialed coaches to come directly to either of us if you are ever dissatisfied with what the Board is doing or not doing, or if you feel that you have not been treated as you expect to be treated by an ICF Board member or staff. This is our pledge to you.
Ed Modell, 2010 ICF President-Elect

For those of you who may not have opened your recent New Year’s greeting email from Giovanna D’Alessio, MCC, 2010 ICF President, I wanted you to know that Giovanna also posted a new message on the ICF blog. Here are links to that message:

International Coach Federation: Challenges in the New Year

http://icfheadquarters.blogspot.com/2010/01/challenges-in-new-year.html#more

In the ICF blog posting, Giovanna discusses the challenges for ICF in 2010 and refers to the subjects that will be discussed at next week’s Board strategic planning meeting. She invites both ICF credentialed and non-credentialed coaches to be part of the dialogue on calls scheduled for January 26 and 27, and February 9 and 10. Giovanna also notes that on Thursday, January 28, she will be sharing another message on the ICF blog about the outcomes of the Board’s discussions and how the Board envisions moving forward. I encourage everyone interested in ICF’s future to read Giovanna’s posting.

Ed Modell, PCC, ICF President-Elect