ICF Credentialing Process: Reactions to Proposed Changes?
By jsibley
October 22nd, 2009 • Related • Filed Under
The ICF recently sent out some additional information about proposed changes to the ICF credentialing process.
I’ve heard from several coaches that they and some of their colleagues were not attending this year’s ICF conference, at least in part because of dissatisfaction with the proposed changes.
I’m curious about how those of you who are familiar with the proposed ISO-based (International Organization for Standardization) certification feel about the changes.
I have not been closely involved, but have three sets of questions:
- Is there enough research about coaching competencies and skills to support ISO certification? Is this effort possibly premature?
- What is the ideal credentialing process for coaching? Given the nature of coaching, what makes it more amenable to credentialing approaches that are, I believe, quite different from those of other helping professions (which, for example, may require thousands of hours of supervised work).
- What sort of changes are various stakeholders (e.g., training organizations, MCCs) likely to support? Is this a set of changes stakeholders are likely to endorse?
So, any thoughts? I imagine there might be more questions and, quite likely, some answers.
Jonathan
Comment by Ed Modell on 15 January 2010:
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
Comment by Ed Modell on 29 December 2009:
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
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 24 December 2009:
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.
Comment by Vikki Brock on 23 December 2009:
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
Comment by Ed Modell on 7 December 2009:
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
Comment by Alix von Uhde on 4 December 2009:
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.
Comment by Rey Carr on 2 December 2009:
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.
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 2 December 2009:
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?
Comment by Jeffrey E. Auerbach on 1 December 2009:
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
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 27 November 2009:
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.
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 27 November 2009:
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.
Comment by Philip Cohen on 25 November 2009:
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.
Comment by Ed Modell on 25 November 2009:
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.
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 23 November 2009:
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
Comment by Deb Saville PCC on 22 November 2009:
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.
Comment by Fran Dutton on 21 November 2009:
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.
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 20 November 2009:
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
Comment by Rey Carr on 17 November 2009:
(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
Comment by Susan Sussman on 17 November 2009:
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”?
Comment by Ed Modell on 16 November 2009:
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
Comment by Susan Sussman on 9 November 2009:
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
Comment by Ken Zaretzky, MCC on 9 November 2009:
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
Comment by Ken Zaretzky, MCC on 9 November 2009:
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
Comment by Deb Saville PCC on 6 November 2009:
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?
Comment by michael stratford on 5 November 2009:
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.
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 5 November 2009:
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)?
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 2 November 2009:
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
Comment by Ed Modell on 31 October 2009:
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
Comment by Joan T Cook on 31 October 2009:
Carly,
Well said. Thank you, and thanks to Michael too.
Joan
Joan T. Cook, MCC
Comment by Carly Anderson on 30 October 2009:
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
Comment by Fran Dutton on 30 October 2009:
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.
Comment by Ed Modell on 30 October 2009:
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
Comment by Joan T Cook on 30 October 2009:
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
Comment by Ed Modell on 29 October 2009:
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
Comment by Rey Carr on 29 October 2009:
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.
Comment by Deb Saville on 29 October 2009:
Iit would appear that there is a ground swell of responses to the ICF proposal. I would like to say that even though I do not agree with the proposal I applaud Ed’s heartfelt message where he describes why he is on the Board. I see and feel it might be an uncomfortable place right now…and would like to acknowledge Board Members for ’standing in the heat’. I trust you to consider the members’ comments and input in moving forward.
Comment by Susan Sussman on 29 October 2009:
To Ed Model:
Ed, I want to apologize for not being clear. I wonder why ICF asked for contributions from members AFTER presenting its proposal rather than BEFORE – when member ideas could have been considered in the creation of a proposal.
Could you please comment on this.
Susan Sussman
Comment by Ed Modell on 29 October 2009:
Susan-
By “evidence” I mean research AND the opinions of all ICF members and other stakeholders. For example, I believe the opinions I have heard from several MCC holders that they have earned the right to keep their credential is important “evidence” for me. I consider opinions for and against the proposal to have equal weight.
In terms of asking for comments on the proposed credentialing system, I specifically asked at the July Board meeting if our intention was to seek out the comments of ALL ICF members and other stakeholders, and I was assured that this was the intent. I know that many Board members have sought out member comments at their local chapter level all over the world. Here in Washington, DC, with the permission of the local chapter President, I sent an email to all 600 or so chapter members and invited them to write both me and the ICF email address with their comments. I also held a forum at the end of the November chapter meeting and about 40 people stayed on for an hour to discuss the proposal. I made clear that I was there to listen to them and not to sell them on the merits of the proposal. Our intent was to seek out comments from all sources even before ICFCoachesTakeAStand sent its first letter to all Board members.
I believe the discussions on Coaching Commons, LinkedIn and the ICF blog have been a great source of information for me as a Board member. I just wish that the discussions could stay at the collaborative and collegial level since we really are all in this together as a global community of coaches.
Ed Modell
Comment by Susan Sussman on 29 October 2009:
To Ed Modell:
Ed, can you please define “evidence.” Do you mean research, or different individual’s and/or stakeholder groups’ opinions, or what?
I find it curious that requests to have credentialed coaches and ICF members contribute to the conversation about revision to the credentialing system came AFTER (not before) the proposal was presented, and even more curious that invitations to contribute to the dialogue via blogs,forums, phone calls, listservs, social networking groups, etc. all seem to have come AFTER the ICFCoachesTakeAStand website was launched.
Would you please comment on this. Thanks
Susan Sussman
Comment by Alix von Uhde on 29 October 2009:
Michael, Jonathan, Tracy, Marion and Sara, thank you so much for your posts, it makes such a positive difference for me when colleagues articulate the questions that so many of us have and begin to express the opportunities that arise from this rather uncomfortable situation.
I believe that for ICF to survive as anything but a mediocre run of the mill organization, the Board must take a lesson from Jim Collins’ Good to Great to heart and realize that now is time to face the brutal facts – their credibility has suffered enormously and continues to suffer with each unanswered question and each unaddressed comment – whether in on line discussions or during the calls. There must be a return to living the organizational core values, a shift from authoritarianism to transcendent / level 5 leadership, a shift from hypnotic language patterns to clearly articulated positions; and personal responsibility must be taken by each and every board member for holding not only themselves and each other but also staff accountable for living our organizational values, to ensure that our values permeate every fiber of the organization; and very importantly a complete restructuring of governance and management must be undertaken. If each and every member of this board demonstrates courage, willingness and ability to step up and make those shifts without delay, with the awareness that it will likely be a long and uncomfortable, if not arduous, process to restore trust and credibility; if the members of the Board can bring themselves to do as one of the leaders Collins interviewed for Good to Great suggests, and embody the notion that, “’My job is to turn over rocks and look at the squiggly things,’ even if what you see can scare the hell out of you.”, I am hopeful. Yes, there are a lot of squiggly things under a lot of ICF rocks – some of them very scary and there is an inspiring, competent, caring, group of professionals within our ranks who have expertise, knowledge of their own limits, and more than the necessary enthusiasm to contribute to shaping a truly great professional organization – one that lives and breathes it’s values, learns from successes and errors, thinks and rethinks its strategies long term, remains true to its vision and values, engages in ongoing self-reflection leading to self-correction and never looses sight of the fact that ultimately this is not about ICF – it is about coaching and coaching is about serving our fellow human beings.
It seems such a waste to continue to ignore the heartfelt comments and questions. Come on, Board members, it’s time to step up. We are all here to help, to pull together – to build and rebuild trust and a fine professional organization. A good first step would be breaking the silence engaging with the membership and honoring the specific requests made by those who have signed the letter to the ICF Board on the ICF Coaches Take A Stand website.
Alix
Comment by Ed Modell on 29 October 2009:
To Michael Stratford-
I am writing this post as one member of the ICF Board and not on behalf of the entire Board.
I know what “it’s not a done deal” means. I am prepared to walk away from the credentialing proposal if the evidence presented establishes that it is the wrong thing to do. I am also prepared to vote to adopt the proposal or the proposal with some major or minor variations if it turns out that the evidence shows that this would be the correct thing to do.
As to alternatives to the proposal, one of the reasons we have asked for comments from all ICF members and other stakeholders is that we consider all of you creative and resourceful and able to suggest all sorts of ideas that we have not thought of. Many comments have already done that. As an example, see Kimm Viebrock’s recent post for which there is a link on the LinkedIn credentialing discussion. I know that after we review all comments, we will carefully deliberate the issue before taking any action.
The Board is not acting in a hierarchical manner when we have asked for comments and suggestions before taking any action. I have worked for ICF’s members for 6 years now at the chapter and committee levels and I did not apply to be on the Board so I could impose my will on you and all other ICF members. I don’t know of any other Board member who has that as their agenda. I don’t expect you to thank me. I just ask that you consider that I may be attempting to act in the best interests of all ICF members, and not my own personal power interests.
In voting to send the credentialing proposal out for comment, I was not acting out of FEAR. I was acting out of FAIRNESS. From what I have heard by personally participating in assessor training calls and meetings for the past year, I know we need to make changes to the present credentialing process so that the outcome of exams is somewhat less subjective, while still evaluating both the art and science of coaching. I believe the proposal out for comment will do that but, as I said earlier, “it is not a done deal” and there may be other, even better ways of reaching that outcome.
So, Michael, I invite you to consider a different perspective and to be part of this collaborative process by giving us your thoughts on how to co-create the best possible ICF credentialing system. I promise that I will give your ideas a good hearing.
Ed Modell, JD, PCC
Comment by Sara Arbel on 29 October 2009:
My observation is that we are shifting from the Art of Coaching to the Industry of Coaching. I truly believe that when we will let go of the Art part we will loose the passion, creativity freedom and joy this profession brings to the hearts of both coach and coachee. ISO will insert to our coaching processes some industrial operating systems and measures that only the mechanically inclined will understand and adopt. This is a sad departure from an artistic passionately creative concept. I wonder what would happen to the field of Sports, if every coach needed to go through some ISO criteria’s before they are allowed to coach their coachees. With deep sorrow. Sara Arbel, Israel
Comment by Tracy Stevens, MCC on 28 October 2009:
Hello Marion,
Thank you for referencing your earlier post where you suggested …
“If we changed to 2 recordings instead of the live portion, we could keep pace with those applying.”
In my opinion this is certainly worth considering as the credentialing process is revamped. After all, the intent of the credentialing process is to assess the competency of the applicant to the standards identified by the ICF by credential level (ACC, PCC, MCC). We do this today with one recording and the Live Exam. If we truly want to ensure the quality of coaching as it is delivered in the marketplace, it makes sense to me that we would use “client coaching sessions” in the assessment process vs. the assessor/client sessions we currently use.
Our coaching colleagues have suggested many valuable ideas throughout this and other social media, as well as on the many ICF Forum Calls. This is one of the reasons ICF Coaches Take A Stand came into being and how the momentum to be heard continues.
I have had the opportunity to speak with many coaches, ACTO Members, ICF Committee Members, and with a couple of Board Members. The one place everyone agrees is that the system needs revision. How this is accomplished is where there is disagreement.
In an earlier post I referenced the “Passionate Discontent” I am observing in the post and in the conversations I have been a part of. Personally, I am delighted to hear the passion and the discontent! My experience has shown me that this is the place where greatness comes from.
We have an amazing opportunity here to either come together under the ICF banner, or not, but by all means come together, to build an organization that represents the highest quality, competency, and integrity. Build it from trust, ethics, and values.
It would be great to hear from you.
What would it feel like to be part of this organization? What would inspire people to be a part of this, excite the growth, and excite the involvement?
Comment by Marion Franklin on 27 October 2009:
Hi Tracy,
I couldn’t agree with you more. Please read my prior comments dated October 12 where I reference the Assessor Training as the problem along with the oral portion of the exam.
Best regards,
Marion Franklin, MCC
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 27 October 2009:
On September 28, nearly one month ago, I asked what are the specific problems the ICF leadership is trying to solve. Now, nearly one month later, I don’t feel any closer to understanding, explicitly, the specific set of problems that are being addressed. I have pieces of the picture, gleaned here and there, but not a clear problem statement, which I still feel would be quite helpful.
Early on, Diane Brennan stated the requirement of a “Credentialing program that is objective, valid, reliable, and secure and will be a true and authentic measure of coaching competencies.”
Is that the agreed upon problem statement, that massive change was required because the current system is:
- not objective
- invalid
- unreliable
- insecure
- not a true or authentic measure of coaching competencies
Should we add, as implied by some official responses, “not defensible”? If so, could we, as Michael and others have asked, have an explanation of what that means”?
Is it also considered true (by the board, presumably not by the many dissenters on this forum and others) that the proposed ISO solution addresses each of these presumed problems?
Would someone from the board like to offer an alternative list of problems with the current process that needed to be addressed and are known to be sufficiently addressed by the proposed solution?
I believe that a clear, explicit statement along the lines of “these are the specific problems we set out to solve” would help us all in our discussion.
Thanks,
Jonathan Sibley
Comment by Tracy Stevens, MCC on 27 October 2009:
Michael,
Thank you, thank you, thank you for articulating what I have been sitting here attempting to write. You have said it clearly! Asked all the right questions, and opened the possibilities for some open communication.
As the immediate Past Chair of Credentialing (2007 and 2008) I am perplexed by the lack of co-creation that has and is taking place. And this from the “Professional Organization” representing the profession of coaching.
I quote from your post … This is true,
“In fact in 2000, Dr. Brenda Wilkins of the Big Sky Institute in Montana, in her PHd. thesis made that qualitative observation: The other modalities of interaction, mentoring, therapy and consulting are inherently hierarchical in nature, presenting an “I know and you don’t” frame of reference. Coaching is the ONLY co-creative relationship in the personal development world. ”
“With respect to being defensible to the outside world, we’ve already demonstrated that this is possible with the case in Colorado regarding the characterization that coaching was practicing therapy without a license…We were successful there and that establishes precedence….”
Not only did Colorado agree, they agreed that Coaches who were aligned to the ICF Code of Ethics and Core Competencies would be recognized as affiliated with an independent profession from those mentioned in their decision in favor of coaches.
Michael, your question – “So…please, someone inform me succinctly and clearly, what we need to defend against?” Excellent! ICF BOD – Please help us to understand.
I will go even further by asking what will be fixed or repaired by moving to a single credential? With the Credentialing experience I have, assessing coaching skills through coach training organizations, and at the ICF for more than 10 years, I can see that the issue is not the actual Credentials, but is the training of our assessors. WE together, need to improve our internal processes for training and developing our assessors. Historically this has been in place; today the training of assessors is weak and does not produce the consistency necessary to provide the gold standard in coaching.
When we became members of the ICF, jumped through the hoops for being awarded our credentials, we did so in alignment with what we believed to be the highest standards… the Gold Standards.. As members and credentialed coaches of the ICF, we signed on for nothing less than the Gold Standard.
So, here is a recommendation from someone who has been very close to the credentialing process for a long time…
1. Resurrect the Assessor training program. Enhance and improve it!
2. Resurrect the Senior Trainer Program.
3. Create the gold standard of assessor training, by leveraging what has worked well in the past and add to it.
4. Resurrect the Assessor Mentoring Program. This is huge for creating consistency in the assessment process.
Again, Thank you Michael for putting to words what so many of us are thinking.
Comment by Karen Wright on 27 October 2009:
Thank you, Michael, for yet another articulate, passionate and coach-like challenge to the ICF leadership – I remain hopeful that we receive some response to at least some of our questions. To the question of “defensibility” I echo your curiosity, and offer the following: If “defense” is ever necessary, then it is likely that harm was done – not possible if what’s going on is indeed coaching. And if coaches are using responsible business practices with regard to letters of agreement and up-front contracting, there is never any misunderstanding as to responsibility, guaranteees or outcomes.
Comment by michael stratford on 27 October 2009:
Me again, with some observations and questions:
for the leadership:
1. If you are not committed to the ISO and single credential path as you continually state, then what is the reasoning behind repeatedly attempting to clarify its validity, or defend its direction while subtly and sometimes not so subtley (see the meta message “change is difficult and as coaches we know that from the people we work with” — If we as coaches know this then there’s no need to remind us, and if you feel a need to remind us, then there’s an agenda on the reminder which appears to be… ’stop resisting’ )?
An optional path, as you oft stated it is not a ‘done deal’ doesn’t need to be explained repeatedly, defended or clarified…and it is this constant repetition that presents itself as justification for the path chosen which then sends the message that it is a committed direction for the board. Clearly as coaches you can understand the simple connect the dots of that equation (my own meta messaging in that one)
2. If it’s not a ‘done deal’ what are the alternatives you are presenting to us? since we have no alternatives being presented to us, but rather a business case being built for our compliance, the ’seeking feedback’ is disingenuous at best. It sounds like you simply want us to agree with your path while presenting the seemingness of hearing our input. Standard command and control buy in methodology.
3. If this is truly a collaborative process, then why did it take an extreme reaction by many of the senior coaches (i.e. the coaches take a stand website, the initiation of this thread on this site, and the johnny come lately ICF blog on the topic) before WE, the rest of the membership were included in something that is so integral to our experience of the profession. This is a MAJOR change not some simple Board decision.
4. Is the board willing to COMPLETELY step away from this initiative with ISO and single credential? IF NOT, then you cannot be wondering at all why we in membership think it’s a ‘done deal.’
5. IF the board IS willing to consider alternatives and move AS IF the ISO and Single credential was NOT the direction, then what do you propose to us? What are the other paths you’ve considered? What were the merits and drawbacks of those paths?
6. Regardless of the already committed resources, energy, time and money that tend to get behind an internal mandate of “we’ve spent so much on this already, it would all be wasted to not move forward” I have this response….regardless of how much energy has been committed to a direction, if the truck is driving over the cliff, it doesn’t make sense to keep driving there. (see Iraq for reference point and spectacular example)
7. Lastly, and singularly my most grating of elements in the whole process is the absence of congruence on two fronts:
A. We allege as one of our distinguishing characteristics for our profession, that we are co-creative instead of hierarchical in nature. In fact in 2000, Dr. Brenda Wilkins of the Big Sky Institute in Montana, in her PHd. thesis made that qualitative observation: The other modalities of interaction, mentoring, therapy and consulting are inherently hierarchical in nature, presenting an “I know and you don’t” frame of reference. Coaching is the ONLY co-creative relationship in the personal development world.
My feeling ALL along has been that the way this has played out is through a hierarchical relationship with membership, vs. co-creative. My evidence is empirical…If it had been co-creative then you would NOT have gotten the level of heat and volume of disagreement over this initiative, it would have been nipped in the bud much earlier in the process. This feels like the rollout of an executive level decision wherein the decision making process is “I get some input but I decide”….there has been no true collaboration with fulll membership until the board received this volume of pushback…and as leaders, you know that pushback is a function of not being inclusive with stakeholders ALL along the way.
B. the second piece of incongruence as I have stated before is that our philosophy, AND core competencies pay bigtime attention to valuing the wisdom of the client and drawing the solution from WITHIN the client. To go outside for a methodology of experts who don’t live in our realm of interaction and to disregard the process of seeking a solution to empowering the credential from WITHIN the clients (which are WE the Membership) is to be operating antithetically to our own principles, and our values of respect and integrity demand more of our leadership than that level of interaction.
Lastly..NO ONE has still explained to me what it is we FEAR soooo much that the credential needs to be ‘defensible.’ A word I keep seeing in every explanation about this direction. Defensible against whom? Who is attacking? Who is likely to attack and for what reason? Who are we afraid of?
If we have concern that some people aren’t going to like NOT getting their credential we have to examine the notion that people may feel some sense of entitlement to have it when they fulfill every other qualification except the testing part. And yet, the BAR association has people have to repeat many times in some instances. (I’ve heard lawyers talk about having to take the exam 8 times) People need to understand that acquiring a credential is a privilege, NOT a right. There are requirements to meet and if you don’t meet them then keep developing until you do, come back and we’ll test you again. We already have the elements of developmental feedback available, a post exam interview with the assessors if requested and in some instances, people have requested to be re-examined by other assessors in case of bias. What doesn’t work about that system?
With respect to being defensible to the outside world, we’ve already demonstrated that this is possible with the case in Colorado regarding the characterization that coaching was practicing therapy without a license…We were successful there and that establishes precedence….
So…please, someone inform me succinctly and clearly, what we need to defend against?
Comment by Deb Saville on 27 October 2009:
Dear ICF Team,
I am a PCC from Western Australia and would like to comment on the proposal to move the credentialling to the ISO system.
I personally think it is better to maintain the professional and independent credentialling that we currently have.
I have experience in the past of being a Registered Training Organisation and went through a similar decision making process about whether to maintain RTO status versus QETO (ISO recognised) pathway. After much wasted time and considerable cost I kept both – and over the long term found that the specific training industry recognised status (ie RTO) fared much better and had much more credibility than QETO.
The cost variation in the administration of RTO versus QETO was significant ($1500 as opposed to $35,000 for QETO!). The cost variation in the ongoing upkeep of QETO was also not user-friendly and bureaucratic and cumbersome.
The reasons for this were muliple and varied – but in a nutshell the training sector were better able to organise ‘pathways’ that were more relevant to a training organisation than the broader industry sector was.
I feel that this will be the same for the coaching profession.
The ICF already has global prescence and credibility. This has provided me personally with much more personal and professional credibility and customesr are becoming better educated about the ICF.
My view is that we as a profession are better of keeping a coaching base as our credentialling body than aligning with ISO.
Of course the processes for coaching might be different than training….but lest there are similarities (and I think perhaps there will be)….I hope that my feedback might be useful for you…..I write this in the spirit of wanting to maintain professionalism and efficiency and hoping that it might save your team lots of time.
Also, the Coach Training Schools that apply for ACTP status and CCEU points will have to learn a different system – which could be counter-productive for our relatively new industry which is just coming to grips with the process as it stands.
I do hope that further research will be carried out and further feedback sought before going down the ISO path.
Warmest Regards,
Deb
Comment by Barbara Connor on 26 October 2009:
Karen’s quote given below would seem to imply, as in other ICF printed communication, that skills is a part of the ISO standard:
“The standard itself requires that competence is demonstrated of the education, knowledge, skills and experience requirements that a certified person would be expected to meet.”
Yet, my understanding based on information given in the open calls is that “skills” would continue to be assessed in the oral portion of the exam(s)and that would be separate from the ISO written exam. So, I remain confused about what seems to me a contradiction.
Also, I still don’t understand why there cannot be three credentials remaining in the “future” of credentialing since the written exam (ISO or not) does not assess/reflect skill levels which admittedly are assessable at three different certification levels. What am I missing here?
Comment by Rey Carr on 26 October 2009:
It is disappointing that the ICF still has not provided a place on their own website to summarize the feedback they have received thus far regarding the ISO issue.
Even the ICF blog, which has the fewest number of contributors on this issue of any of the existing Internet venues, yet has had some quality input, only has ICF responses that are more defensive. And good luck to ICF members who hope to find the blog on the ICF website to either read or comment. It would be very useful to summarize the responses to the calls about the issue and place the synopses on the blog.
Comment by Alix von Uhde on 26 October 2009:
Carly, Diane and Ed,
First, Carly, I admire your courage in bringing up the issue of the management company. It’s important to me to let you know publically that similar concerns to those expressed by your Australian colleagues are shared in many places by many ICF members – and clearly not shared by the members of the Board that I have heard express an opinion.
Diane, you write about the staff, “Their focus is service. They make our lives as volunteer leaders better….” I do not doubt the sincerity of your belief or your experience. Yet, since reading what you wrote, I keep wondering about your criteria. Is that what a management company is supposed to do – to make the lives of the “leaders” easier? Is a management company not there to make all of our lives easier – to serve the entire membership competently, to provide accurate and complete information to all members, to uphold and demonstrate the values of the organization in each and every interaction with members? Those are among the criteria I use, and in doing so, I have to say with the single outstanding exception of Sherrie Harvey, I have not been well served by this management company staff as a member of two different committees, as an Assessor, Assessor Trainer or as a simple member. And, Diane, you will recall that you and I discussed in detail situations with staff that were quite disturbing, not only to me personally and in my various roles as part of the ICF workforce, but also the wide-ranging consequences for the organization.
Ed, I understand that you, like Diane, have been well served by the dedication and cooperation of the management company staff that you have experienced in your various leadership roles in your journey to the Board. And I have no doubt that each staff member is a fine human being. That isn’t a question at all.
When my husband goes out to dinner with potential business partners, he is keen to observe how those potential partners treat the service personnel. If his guests don’t treat the people waiting tables with the same, courtesy, respect and friendliness that he receives from them, he knows that any potential partnership will likely be fraught with difficulties – not because these potential partners are “bad people”, but because it would likely require very extensive mentoring and monitoring from him for them to understand values of his company and be able to carry those values into their every interaction with clients, suppliers and co-workers.
Diane and Ed, I find it valuable to hear your experiences with the management company staff is so very different from mine, and it really does make me curious. It makes me wonder if the leadership and those being groomed for a leadership role are flying first class, while the rest of us are sitting at the back of a bus. I would hope that you and the rest of the board would be interested in and curious about other points of view and the completely contrary experiences with the management company staff that many of us have had. For those of us who have worked in the corporate world, this is not an uncommon divergence of perspective. And when it occurs, it requires the focused attention of the leadership.
Alix
Comment by Janet Harvey, MCC on 26 October 2009:
Good day to all,
Alix and others who asked, the Open Call recordings from 10/20 and 10/22 are now online at http://www.coachfederation.org/blog as is the schedule and telephone numbers for additional calls in November.
Karen, I completely endorse our Chapter Leaders around the world as critical leadership for our association. I was on the Puget Sound Coaches Association Board for four years including the Presidency and remain active with PSCA in addition to my role on the Global Board. I have personally hosted three webinars and a live event with chapter members regarding the proposed credential changes and I make myself pesonally available for members with questions and comments. I am aware that every board member has done similar outreach in their areas. On the first scheduled Chapter Leader call attendance was low at 17. We scheduled a second Chapter Leader call to encourage more participation. We have received and responded to requests for additional ‘tools’ to host conversations and provided those in turn. If you know of a chapter that wants more support, feel free to send them my way and either I or a more geographically located board member will be available.
Cheers, Janet Harvey, jaent.harvey@invitechange.com
Comment by Future Potential Coach on 26 October 2009:
I have spent some time reading many of the posts here, and I feel compelled to share my thoughts and story. As a person who is considering coaching, I would like to offer an outsider’s perspective. So you have some history, I have spent the last 12 months carefully considering and researching if coaching is for me (via a coach), which resources and training schools might be a good fit, and how I might go about getting started. Currently I work as a manager, and I use coaching informally while managing people on a daily basis.
In my job, I have learned that I can teach people to be competent by breaking down the steps of a skill. Sometimes people have to step outside their comfort zone to become skilled and competent, and it is very difficult. Sometimes it doesn’t happen. With that, I do think the credentials and specific skills are important to those that want them and to develop the field. They do measure competency as someone posted below. But that is all they measure – the skills or process or the quantifying (the ISO).
In other areas, people don’t need to try as hard because it comes naturally. That is where the talent comes in. It is so much easier to train someone with talent for the position. Then it moves from competency to varying degrees of excellence. It becomes about the people and the quality.
What I have learned in this time is that coaching is emerging and still in its infancy. This is exciting since I love to be a part of projects at the beginning and be a part of change! The downside is this process has been very confusing. There are so many schools and governing bodies with so many certificates and credentials. I have called 8-10 schools and spoken with admissions. As a person who likes to be around other caring, hard-working, and successful people, I always ask how many people they have denied admission or asked to “take a break from courses”. I think it is an important question since it is one measuring stick to the integrity of the program. This shouldn’t be for everyone! I hope people are being screened for potential success in coaching based on their talent from questions asked. (So far, I have not registered for any schools, but I have started “practicing” on some generous and patient friends.)
This is a passionate group, and it is exciting to read so many expert perspectives from professionals and leaders in the field about how to grow the field. In my humble and non-expert opinion, it seems it would be the most beneficial to take one more step back beyond the credentials and look at the people and talent pool. I understand the competencies and certifications are important, but having the right people on board will likely increase the number of higher level certifications down the road. As I see it from my view, there needs to be more of the right types of people getting started in the field. That will help this people/quality business grow and develop more people successfully which can only grow its reputation and the profession itself.
Comment by Angela Spaxman on 24 October 2009:
Rey,
I think the inate dullness of the ISO system (to you, me and others) is part of the reason this problem erupted in the ICF. I had heard several times that the ICF was going to start using ISO and my thought each time was ‘yawn’. It was only later when we heard the actual practical implications — which seem now to have nothing actually to do with ISO, but simply the ICF’s way of improving their own system –that I started to pay attention and many others started to take an interest as we have seen.
One of the lessons I’ve learned is that when an organization is planning changes and wants input, it’s better to make it provocative as early as possible.
Comment by Rey Carr on 23 October 2009:
Two observations. They seem related. I hope I’m not the only one, but everytime there is a more detailed explanation of ISO, how it works and what it does, etc., my eyes get glassy, my brain just doesn’t seem to decipher or want to understand the dense text. The details are so filled with jargon that I’m finding it totally perplexing. In other words, the ISO information is too complex for me to decipher. Maybe that’s just me, but everything about the ISO seems alien from coaching and coaches. Maybe it’s just me. I have zero motivation to want to learn more about it.
Second, such complexity makes me go back to square one: the simplicity of the current credentialing system along with the dilemmas that can be easily be fixed seems far superior. “It ain’t broke; it don’t need to be fixed.” It’s something I can understand; and it’s written about by people who can communicate on my level.
Comment by Karen Wright on 23 October 2009:
At the risk of adding another element to the discussion, I am curious as to the ICF’s “formal” view of the role of the chapters in the debate and communication around the issue, both now and in the future. I have long believed that the local chapters were established to serve two purposes – that of building face to face community at the local level, and that of providing a vehicle for two-way communication between members and the global Board as well as members in other geographies. Yet, when I approached my local chapter as to their plans for communicating and discussing the credentialing proposal and related issues, they had no such plan, nor had they been contacted by any one from the global Board to discuss how the chapter might engage the members on the subject. If they, as a large and active chapter, are not feeling connected to the issue as a result of outreach from the global Board, what role can we expect the chapters to play in the future of this issue and the organization, and what support can they expect? It is my understanding, based on discussions with others who have done significant chapter outreach, that relatively few chapters are viable. My fear is that the global Board’s efforts on the credentialing issue to date have been conducted in more of a vacuum than perhaps they might have been if the true capacity of the member network had been optimally leveraged, and moreover that the chapter network is slowly evaporating as a connection to the bigger ICF picture. Thoughts from Board members on role of the chapters?
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 23 October 2009:
Great discussions, inputs, perspectives, and suggestions thus far.
Now, with regards to discussing the issue on the proposed ‘credentialling system’ and ISO 17024 (separating the issue before consolidation?) what if we were to focus on:
* what will likely work with regards to ICF’s credentialling system, and the issue of having credible validation of ICF’s credentialling system rather on what’s wrong now?
* what positive progresses could we contribute to make the credentialling system work, and the validation for credibility sustainable, rather than blaming or finding faults on the ICF’s Board or each other?
* how we can influence the need for change in a positive, assertive, yet diplomatic manner rather than try to exert our personal control to what the direction should be? (using a coaching style where feasible)
* how we could collaborate to make the credentialling and credentialling validity & credibility status, a win-win with as little ‘authority’ and stamping our marks as ‘expert knows best’ stand/status?
* how we could harness & leverage all the ‘resources’ available from the ICF and its members and others, rather than discourage these ‘resources’, to bring ICF and coaching to the next level?
* how we could simplify and communicate the ‘complexities’ of the concept of ICF’s proposed credentialling changes, and avoid complexities [would breaking down the components help - treating the credentialling system (symptom), and the validity & credibility of the credentialling system (outcome/result) separately?]
* how ICF could actionalize its proposal justifibly based on evidences that point towards building ICF towards being the premier institution in coach credentialling, and the ONLY CHOICE, yet the ‘final decision’ is not influence by ‘emotional outcries’ but based on rational decision making?
Will some of my questions above, enable us to move towards better clarity for this discussion?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 23 October 2009:
Karen, it’s great to have you as part of this discussion. I am posting this in multiple locations where these discussions are taking place.
Coaches Take a Stand sent a letter to the board (which can be found at http://icfcoachestakeastand.org/index.php?en_view-and-sign-letter ) on September 30 asking for a response to 7 questions by November 15th.
I thought this might be a good time to check in and confirm that the board is expecting to respond to the 7 questions by November 15th and to ask where / how the board intends to respond. I realize that some board members might think that the questions have been addressed, but I’m not sure that each question has been answered explicitly, or in one place.
I see that you sent further clarification of some next steps in an email today, but I think it would be helpful to know whether there is an intention to answer the Coaches Take a Stand Letter directly by the November 15th date that was requested.
Also, in today’s email you state that after November 23d, “a new e-mail address is to be introduced allowing you to provide additional input after having read the report”. Could you please explain the benefit of having comments sent via email rather than continuing to use public forums? I believe that having public comments helps to build community and to have members see whether their feelings are echoed by others in the community. What are your thoughts on this?
Best wishes,
Jonathan Sibley
Comment by Janet Harvey, MCC on 23 October 2009:
Good morning Alix,
The Open Comment period will run through at least the annual conference in Orlando. Four additional Open Calls have been added to the calendar for November. Our commitment is to member comment. In addition, calls are being scheduled with Chapter Leaders, interested people from the ICF Coaches Take A Stand group, a call in French and a call in Spanish. Everyone is encouraged to post to the blog which is located on the ICF home page (left side link) or submit ideas and comments to isocomments@coachfederation.org All comments received will be provided in unabridged form to the Board. The intent with the Open Comment period is to provide vehicles for as many people to engage as wish to, offering ideas and perspective that will shape a stronger future specifically with regard to our credential and the supporting systems.
I am unclear what the problem was with the link as it worked fine for me; and I do experience firewalls being particularly inconsistent when routing from social media sites. You may find greater ease with http://www.coachfederation.org/blog and the schedule and telephone number is posted first. Yes, the telephone number is the same as for previous calls and you will find it right below the dates in the blog post.
Audio acrobat is delayed in transmission of the 10/20 call; it and the 10/23 call will be posted as soon as the ICF receives it.
Cheers,
Janet Harvey
Comment by Alix von Uhde on 23 October 2009:
Thank you, Karen, for posting the times of the additional open calls. (I just tried to access the link you provided, apparently there’s some technical difficulty). Could you tell us if the same bridge line number, that was used for the previous open calls will be used for these November calls? And a question about the call on October 20th, on that call Janet Harvey said something about the open comment period being extended into December, could you let us know exactly how long the open comment period will be, and when the recording of the call from October 20th will be posted?
Thanks,
Alix
Comment by Karen Tweedie PCC on 23 October 2009:
On another different but related note, I would like to offer a heartfelt invitation to coaches who have signed the letter on the website ICFCoachesTakeAStand and others who might be in this
discussion and feel passionately. I have attempted to post this invitation on as many sites as I know that are holding these conversations in the hope of connecting with everyone.
When I consider the effort that has gone into designing and creating the TakeAStand website I know it is the work of experienced, skilled, connected people. When I think of the work ICF is engaged in to ensure the long-life and continuing excellence of the ICF credentialing system I know how valuable it would be to have the benefit of the input of people with those qualities.
I know that written communication alone is inadequate in dealing with complex issues. And this has only been reinforced to me over this last month or so.
We are hosting additional open calls where members and interested others can contribute through the month of November. Specifically, the dates are:
November 3: 9 a.m. (New York), x (Paris), x (Hong Kong);
November 12: 4 p.m. (New York), x (Paris), x (Hong Kong);
November 16: 9 a.m. (New York), x (Paris), x (Hong Kong); and
November 23: 4 p.m. (New York) , x (Paris), x (Hong Kong).
I have put a link to the details for next round of Open Calls for November below, and ask you sincerely to help design the way forward by contributing on these calls.
http://icfheadquarters.blogspot.com/2009/10/join-upcoming-icf-credentialing-call.html#more
Kind regards,
Karen Tweedie PCC
Comment by Karen Tweedie PCC on 23 October 2009:
Hi Jonathan,
The professional association I am most familiar with is the Project Management Institute.
Kind regards,
Karen
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 23 October 2009:
Karen wrote: “ISO 17024 …….such as ICF – can validate THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM for certification of persons. The standard itself ……. to meet.”
As far as I am aware (as a qualified ISO QMS Lead Auditor), ISO 17024 applies to the Organization (in this case, if ICF decides to pursue). The standards assess ICF against the ISO 17024 clauses particularly with regards to ICF’s credentialling processes, structures, and systems.
ICF is ‘free’ to design its credentialling ‘management system’ which must meet the ISO 17024 standards. The ISO 17024 focuses particularly at the ‘management system’ including the credentialling system, assessor’s processes and the like. ISO 17024, as far as my interpretation is not about the individual but more to do with the Organization (ICF).
The issue is more of which ‘credentialling system’ which ICF will ultimately decide (whether it is a single, two-tier, three-tier, etc., system) is of concern to ICF members?
The issue of ISO 17024 and the revamp of the ICF credentialling system although related are actually two separate issues. If consensus and strategic intent of the revamp of the ICF credentialling system can be agreed upon, ISO 17024 may take ICF to the next level?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 22 October 2009:
Karen, yes, ISO 17024 has been accepted by various countries and national certification bodies. And yes, it appears to be a very general standard.
Could you please list the professions which have chosen to embrace ISO 17024? Which of these professions do you think bears the closest resemblance to coaching?
Jonathan Sibley
Comment by Karen Tweedie PCC on 22 October 2009:
Alison, thank you so much for this post and your astute observations about ISO 17024. You have clarified things very well.
As some further clarification I add these comments:
ISO 17024 relates to General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons. This standard provides a benchmark for bodies offering certification of individuals applicable to any occupation. It has been adopted by over 80 countries and accepted by a number of national certification bodies.
ISO 17024 provides a framework for accreditation and certification programs for individuals and a rigorous standard against which any credentialing provider – such as ICF – can validate THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM for certification of persons. The standard itself requires that competence is demonstrated of the education, knowledge, skills and experience requirements that a certified person would be expected to meet.
This international standard provides the general requirements for a management system. It describes conditions for applications, examinations, surveillance and re-certification of individuals. ISO 17024 specifies the avoidance of conflict of interest concerning certification, confidentiality of information, competence of staff and contractors, and the need for stakeholder input into the certification schemes. It requires that the system abides by regulatory requirements as well as the International Standard itself.
So in short – ISO is a framework, a set of guidelines in helping us design the system or process for credentialing. All decisions regarding the specific content of the credentialing program remain a decision of the ICF following from research and wide-ranging input from stakeholders.
Coaching is still a young profession. There are numerous organizations offering certificates and certifications, but by developing a credentialing process that adheres to internationally recognized standards ICF moves to the future and contributes to the credibility of the coaching profession.
Kind regards,
Karen Tweedie PCC
Comment by michael stratford on 22 October 2009:
It’s been a bit since I’ve posted and I’ve been reflecting some more on the entire process. I have a couple of view to offer into the mix.
First, the notion of how many credentials. I believe strongly in a tiered credential for this simple reason. If we consider that the profession of coaching has a path of development, then tier credentials (3 in this case) serves strongly to support the ongoing course correction necessary as people progress from beginning to mastery. Currently we have the ACC at 100 hours of client contact to 2500 hours for MCC. This is a huge frickin gap! And what we have proposed is a single credential at 500 hours. Let’s examine what can happen under the current or proposed systems.
View #1
System A. 3 credentials…step wise from 100-750-2500 hours of client contact. (I’m not attached to the current hourly divisions, it’s just what we have) By holding 3 credentials with these steps as part of the path of development, the ICF has the opportunity to course correct the coach’s ability over the course of time. That means that if someone is Waaaay off course at 100 hours, they don’t necessarily repeat and groove bad habits for the next 650 hours if they are following the developmental direction offered by the assessors. Next is the 750 mark, where yet another course correction can occur. This kind of interval adjustment is crucial to the profession’s reputation over time.
System B. The single credential method…Imagine for a moment that a boat goes off course by even 2 degrees at the outset of its journey and then, gets NO course correction for the rest of the journey…the probability that you will land at your desired destination is directly proportional to the distance you still have to travel. If the distance is 500 yards, it’s probably no big deal, you can correct as you near the dock…if the trip is 500 nautical miles…now you’re in deep…you could miss the continent completely…and that’s what the challenge is with having a single credential…we run the risk of 2500 hours of bad habits perpetuating themselves and increasing over the business life of the coach.
Requiring periodic CEU’s is no answer to the course correction challenge as there is NO rigor in what qualifies for the CEU and it could simply be parallel content vs. the upgrade of a course correction.
View #2
The initiative of having a written measurement of ‘body of knowledge’ is misguided at heart. As I’ve stated before and many assessors have experienced already…people can hold the data points ABOUT coaching without having any skill at all at application. And what are we actually measuring in a written test? That a coach can distinguish between an ethical and unethical scenario? Well, there’s some validity in that question, however with respect to the rest of the core competencies there is nothing truly to measure other than what we seem to be seeking that people memorize. I would hope we’ve come further than that in our evolution as a learning body. I would prefer an analogy at this point.
For some tribes years ago it was the test of manhood to be able to kill a lion. This signified if you not only were a ‘man’ but could be a hunter for the tribe. What would happen is that upon the appropriate age, you would be given a shield and a spear and told “go kill a lion.” And you either came back with a lion’s head or you were eaten. And while you might have learned hunting skills by watching other hunters or being told about hunting, I clearly don’t believe that being able to tell the elders about how one goes about killing a lion would have passed the test or weighed much at all. You could either kill it or not.
My point is this. Coaching is and always will be a living interaction. Anything written about it is conjectural and a throwback to our overreliance on the intellect as a means of demonstrating efficacy. The academic model that is applied to other professions that both require and are grounded in technical knowledge is NOT appropriate for the ever changing interaction between coach and client. Neither of them are a graph, a transaxle, a liver, or an accountant’s ledger. And what I wonder about most as I consider this whole question of a written examination is what has us so afraid to be able to be measure solely on our ability to spontaneously demonstrate coaching in a given moment?
One last salvo on the “having the information about doing something is useless relative to demonstration” point. Consider two situations. Debt and Obesity. There is plenty of data and information intellecutally gathered and spread about both. And yet…the USA has one of the highest obesity rates in the country and people are in ridiculous amounts of debt. Clearly the data is much less relevant than the actions required to implement and apply the data.
Here’s the simple data on losing weight. Burn fewer calories than you take in, take in better calories, eat smaller meals more frequently for the calories you take in…and do something physical to support circulation and elimination. There, now you have the secret. Repeat this information on every written test you can imagine to any assessor you choose and see if you lose weight.
Comment by Alison Kane ACC on 22 October 2009:
Having joined this discussion rather late in the day, apologies if my points have already been covered and for those of you also following the linkedin discussion this is a duplicate of my recent post there!
Following my participation in one of the ICF open telephone conversations around the ISO/credentialling issue a couple of days ago, I think there are four things the ICF should consider doing:
1. Demystify ISO17024
Following the call today it seems that many people do not understand the ISO thing. Some have heard of ISO9001 etc, but do not realise that ISO operates hundreds of standards which are recognised around the world. Some seem to be frightened of compromising the art of coaching and the human aspects as they see ISO as a technical and process driven organisation.
I think it is important for the ICF to clearly and succinctly explain that ISO17024 is an internationally recognised standard for bodies that certify the competence of persons. It is just a framework to ensure and allow the ICF to demonstrate objectivity, fairness etc in their credentialling process and the ICF WILL REMAIN IN FULL CHARGE OF THE NUMBER, CRITERIA & CONTENT OF THEIR CREDENTIALS.
2. Explain the power of ISO
ISO has the advantage of allowing an international organisation like the ICF to demonstrate to the world that it is meeting an internationally recognised standard in its credentialling PROCESS. This can only be good for establishing the professionalism of the ICF and of coaching.
3. Address the serious concerns around establishing different levels of credential:
I feel that it is very important to have different levels of credential to allow people to start the process (e.g. ACC) (the currently proposed credential is too big as first step for most people) and then grow as coaches and aim towards the next level (e.g. PCC) with a recognised master practitioner credential to follow.
4. Identify the “body of knowledge” for different levels of credentials to be tested in a written exam (and think outside the current ICF box!)
Where I think that the ICF seems to have got tied up is in deciding how to examine the “body of knowledge” at different levels to establish different levels of credential. On the call today it seemed as if the ICF had limited the body of knowledge that can be examined in written form to the ICF ethics & core competencies. There is however a vast body of theoretical knowledge out there concerning coaching which I would expect everyone at master practitioner level (even PCC) to be aware of even if they don’t choose to use it all in their coaching practice e.g. neuroscience (e.g. coaching with the brain in mind – David Rock), NLP, positive psychology, etc etc.).
Surely the ICF can put together something to allow coaches to demonstrate their understanding of the theory underpinning coaching in addition to the even more important oral exams to allow them to demonstrate the art of their coaching in practice.
No other professional would expect to practice properly without understanding the theory behind their art and I think to ensure the excellence of our profession we need to do the same.
Comment by Ed Modell on 21 October 2009:
Carly-
I have worked closely and directly with ICF staff for 4 years now and from my own personal experience I must say that your characterization of them is completely wrong. I am a former chapter president, committee chair, SIG co-founder and co-host, member of several task forces and now global Board member. I have had weekly working contact with our Executive Director Gary Boyler, Assistant Executive Director Magda Mook and all of our dedicated, hard-working and cooperative ICF staff members. I believe that they completely understand our coaching profession and culture, while at the same time they have the experience and knowledge to operate a global association and to carry out the Board’s adopted policies. I practiced law for 28 years and worked with several other associations before becoming a coach 6 years ago, and I believe that Gary, Magda and their staff are as fine a group of professionals as I have ever worked with.
Ed Modell, JD, PCC
Comment by Suzette le Roux on 21 October 2009:
Amen to such wisdom
Comment by Marion Franklin on 20 October 2009:
As long as we have this open forum, I would like to voice a serious concern that I have had for quite some time. It is indirectly tied into the credentialing system.
I know of at least one ICF approved training program where the person owning the organization is not only not credentialed but is NOT AN ICF member!!! It is someone who only completed training in a little known coaching program. In addition, it is someone who consistently disparages the ICF publicly. The person has made it clear that having ICF approval is strictly for marketing purposes.
As coaches we pledge to a Code of Ethics – or at least it is my understanding that it is part of our commitment as a coach. How can the ICF allow a non-member, non-credentialed individual to offer an approved program? I’ve been told that it is a LOOPHOLE.
Can we please look at many of the ICF systems, rules, regulations, etc. and FOCUS ON THOSE that REALLY NEED CHANGING – vs. telling us that the system is broken and we need to bring in the big guns and make sweeping changes.
Yes, the credentialing system is ‘damaged’ in that there is room for improvement, but that doesn’t mean it’s broken.
Best regards,
Marion Franklin, MCC
Comment by Diane Brennan on 20 October 2009:
Dear Carly,
I appreciate your observations and comments about the language used by coach training schools and around credentialing and chapter and committee leaders and members. These are valuable points for ongoing dialogue.
On the ICF management company and our Executive Director, we have caring, competent and committed staff working with us. I’ve had the opportunity to work with Gary and the staff very closely over the last several years. These are good people and they deserve respect. They are truly the ICF staff, not “the management company”. Their focus is service. They make our lives as volunteer leaders better so that we can stay focused on what is important for our members, coaching and ultimately those we serve.
Diane
Comment by Carly Anderson, MCC on 20 October 2009:
I’d like to add the following to this thread’ as I feel these need to be documented:
• The language used by coach training schools – certified/credentialed
• The congruence of ICF Chapter Leadership with being credentialed
• Role/compatibility of the ICF management company with a coaching culture
*Coach training schools offer a certified graduate designation. I notice many coaches saying they are certified or even credentialed through [Corporate Coach U, Hudson Institute, etc.) who don’t hold an ICF credential. I feel this is misleading as being a certified graduate only means you have passed the test of that school verifying you have a certain amount of coaching knowledge as taught by that school. As we move forward in the ICF credentialing conversation, I request that the language used by coach training schools be revisited so that it doesn’t get confused with credentialing, at least by Accredited Coach Training Programs, and a formal statement of request to every other coach training program we know of (to not call it credentialed or certified graduate). There may be another term to use, that doesn’t get confused with credentialing.
*Congruence of ICF Chapter Leadership. I have noticed over the past 11 years that I’ve been an ICF member that I’ve been to very few chapters where the President or President-Elect has been an ICF credentialed coach. Is it time that we insist that these two roles (at minimum within Chapter leadership team) hold a credential? If we keep the ACC, this isn’t a big ask, but even if we only have PCC and MCC in the future (or something like that), is it too much to expect a credentialed leadership position? I have spoken with my local chapter President earlier this year about the lack of awareness of one of the core aspects that ICF membership offers – being a path of development for your skills as a coach, by going down the credentialing path. He isn’t credentialed. He appreciated my observation, and asked if I would write him a short statement he could use about credentialing at the beginning of every meeting. I don’t attend many chapter meetings anymore, but I did hear him make the statement his own at the last meeting I attended. There is another person I know who is in a prominent Chapter role that has no credential yet could be PCC or MCC. That person recently relayed to me they don’t believe they need an ICF credential as they have a PhD (in Business Administration) and are ‘credentialed’ from their ACTP (their words). I wonder how we can allow people to be committee/leadership when they don’t believe in the path of development offered by the organization they are representing? I find this lacking in integrity and request the ICF take a strong position on the qualities inherently required of ICF Chapter leadership. If they have the hours and the training, why aren’t we insisting they go for their credential to be part of leadership?
* The ICF management company. I’ve hesitated to bring forth this information as I only have third party knowledge. I trust whom I’ve heard this from, and it has been concerning me that it could be an 800 pound gorilla no-one is willing to put out in the open. The ICF Executive Director was a guest at the ICF Australasia conference held in August in Adelaide, Australia. I’m originally from Australia, having co-founded the ICFA at the beginning in 1998/9. I moved to the United States in 2001 but have many coaching connections in Australia. After I informed colleagues worldwide about the ICFCoachesTakeAStand website, I had emails from some Australian coaches that deeply concerned me. The ICF Executive Director was an invited guest at the conference, and apparently did not endear himself. I heard him described as a ‘bulldozer’ and that he was ‘extremely rude’ to the ICFA leadership team. I have no exposure to the Exec Director so I don’t know what he is like, but I trust the people I’ve heard this from. What I am concerned about is that we don’t appear to have an Exec Director who is congruent with our organization. I also heard this management company described, in its broader context, as being a ‘cut throat’ management company. If that is their reputation, why are we allowing such a company to work with us? What is wrong with the ICF standing up and demanding we have a management company that embraces our core coaching values? I wonder how much of the current credentialing direction has been influenced by this management company? I take responsibility for only having partial information here, and am willing to take the consequences if what I write here is incorrect. But I felt it needed to be said.
Comment by Sue Johnston on 19 October 2009:
Is there a risk that ICF’s apparent obsession with credentials is distracting it from whatever else it stands for?
I resigned my membership when ICF took the vote away from those who don’t hold its credential as it discounts the many excellent coaches who hold other credentials or professional designations. When I consider rejoining, I see an organisation that looks inward, instead of outward to its members and their clients. That doesn’t say “coach” to me. Nor does it say “sustainable relevance.”
Comment by Vikki G. Brock on 18 October 2009:
For those of you who may not have seen the letter sent to the ICF Board on September 30, 2009 by ICF credentialed and member coaches who have chosen to take a stand with regard to the proposed credential changes.
I have included a copy of the letter below.
Visit http://www.icfcoachestakeastand.org to see an updated list and statistics of coaches who have signed this letter.
We look forward to hearing the board’s responses to the seveen requests within this letter.
Vikki Brock, MCC
ICF Credentialing Co-Chair 2005-6
************* ICF Coaches Take a Stand Letter*******
The recent decision by the ICF Board of Directors to transition to a single ICF ISO credential has sounded an alarm among key ICF stakeholder groups and strategic organizational partners. We are writing you this urgent communication because we resolutely believe that the value and benefit of ICF membership is at stake for a significant population of its credentialed and member coaches, as well as the accredited and non-accredited coach training organizations that support the ICF credentialing process.
We believe that a failure of ICF to act prudently, inclusively, and collaboratively with ICF coaches about their credentials risks fragmenting the organization further and driving coaches away from the ICF to seek their coach credentials from other coaching certification bodies. Even worse, a much wider and growing population of new coaches entering the field will experience no significant barriers to entry, or more importantly, see any compelling reasons to embark on a professional development track towards their continuing coach education, training and ICF certification levels. This would be a grievous loss for ICF as an organization and the coaching profession, especially given the 10+ years during which time our volunteer members have invested tirelessly and passionately to earn, establish, and brand their credentials, which are only just now gaining a solid foothold of recognition, credibility and earning power in the business marketplace.
Dissolving the current ICF credentials (even with a relatively long transition period), while concurrently diverting organizational focus to the branding and promoting of a newly established single credential will cause even greater confusion among the public, media, hiring organizations and corporations, and individual coach-consumers. Moreover, this will create an economic burden and diversion of resources for all credential holders (e.g., recreating print and web based marketing materials, the lost of business opportunity tied to holding an established credential, and the time required to explain these changes to our clients and the public).
Finally, we see a very real danger of jeopardizing the competitive brand advantage that the ICF credentials currently offer in the marketplace through the creation of a single credential and the removal of the levels of professional credential distinction.
The Decision to Move to a Single ICF ISO Credential
ICF credentialed and ICF member coaches have reviewed the ICF ISO materials, attended ICF sponsored teleforums about impending changes to the credentialing process, and voiced deep concerns directly to ICF leaders about the due diligence efforts behind the competencies assessment, knowledge gathering, stakeholder consultations and decision making processes.
It is evident that a clear consensus is emerging which indicates that ICF’s planned transition to a single credential is unacceptable to a significant population of the ICF membership body. Please go to http://www.icfcoachestakeastand.org to see a full list of individuals who support this statement.
The Continued Desire to Collaborate
We appreciate that the ICF Board, with the support of the management company staff, has sincerely endeavored to improve the ICF Credentialing system and testing processes. We recognize that the current credentialing system and its examination processes are labor intensive and operationally inefficient, and therefore result in a protracted application and administrative process for certification.
We realize that to create fair and reliable professional coach examinations to support standards of excellence, and a rigorous professional development path with an agreed upon knowledge base of coaching competency models that have been empirically tested and possess a solid inter-rater reliability, is an enormous task that requires careful and considerable research and validation efforts by a variety of qualified professionals. We know that this work is yet to be done and will require a wider pool of coaching stakeholders outside of the ICF credentialed coaches themselves.
This will necessitate a concerted effort and collaboration with professional parties who have our best interest at heart and who understand that coaching in its purest form is both a science and an art.
Thus, we are committed to an open, collaborative dialog in order to achieve a shared goal of a credentialing system that serves ICF members, the coaching profession and the public at large. We are committed to upholding the highest standards for the profession which are aligned with ICF’s core membership values of integrity, excellence, collaboration and respect.
Our Requests of the ICF Board of Directors
At this time, we respectfully request that the ICF Board of Directors:
1. Table the decision to move to a single ICF ISO credential and put an immediate halt to the implementation process of the proposed transition schema
2. Retain and continue to promote the existing credentialing system of three levels of ICF certification: ACC, PCC and MCC; and at the same time, improve the branding of the credential distinction levels
3. Sponsor the first Town Hall Meeting with an Open Microphone Format about ICF Credentialing at the Annual Membership Meeting at this year’s 2009 ICF Conference in Orlando, engaging in a dialog between ICF general membership and the ICF Board of Directors, so that members’ concerns are expressed, heard, received and recorded in an open forum that promotes discussion and healthy debate. We ask that this Town Hall Meeting be announced to membership by November 15, 2009.
4. Begin a collaborative, open dialog with all ICF members to understand, explore and participate in the decision making processes related to creating the future of the ICF credentialing system
5. Follow the ICF Town Hall Meeting with a series of Open Town Hall ICF Membership Meetings, on a web platform that allows for instant message chats, providing the opportunity for our worldwide members to speak, weigh in and have their voices heard and taken into account in the final decisions being made
6. Establish a Coaching Knowledge Base Advisory Board of qualified individuals, as well as strategic organizational and academic partners, to work closely with the ICF Board of Directors to assess and examine the coaching body of knowledge that can be annotated and tested for validity and reliability
7. Formulate, document and implement an ICF Leadership Transparency Plan that will:
a. allow members a greater window and input into their own organization’s governance and the decision making process at the Board and Committee Leadership levels;
b. provide credentialed membership referenda for voting on key decisions related to the future of our credentials; and
c. establish a management control and membership survey mechanism for the Board and ICF members to periodically and transparently evaluate and track each others’ collaborative relationship effectiveness over time
We ask that the ICF Board of Directors respond fully to each of our above requests by sending an email reply to each of the individuals, as signed below, by November 15, 2009.
Respectfully yours,
ICF Credentialed and ICF Member Coaches
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 18 October 2009:
Thanks Sara for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you with your points on ‘performance’ and your use of the metaphoric approach to coaching, though my concern has always been about ‘CONSISTENCY’ in coaching performance. We can only benchmark when we have at least some ‘indicators/measures/evidences’ that enable us to benchmark. We can set our own benchmarks, or follow universally accepted benchmarks (which ICF and many coaching Organizations are pursuing?), or meet the benchmarks ‘expected’ or ‘agreed’ with our clients. Coaching performance has in some way or another can be benchmarked against own or universal standards, or client’s criterias/expectations. So if we are going to ‘measure’ coaching performance, which benchmarks should we be using?
To your response about ‘inner personality make-up’, what I meant was that we need to assess not only ‘hard’ coaching skills, but subtle skills/inclinations/patterns like integrity, ego-strengths, emotional stability, trustworthiness, persistency in staying the course, etc., that support coaching skills capacity & capability to move towards mastery. A good example is that if a coach ‘lacks’ ego-strength, he/she is likely not able to coach to a higher level when he/she is coaching a coachee who has the behavioural and attitudal tendencies towards ‘incoachability’. ‘Truth’ is essential only when that leads to ‘realizations’, the need and the motivation to enter into transformation, and actioning the transformation. My focus here is about having the ‘personality make-up’ that will consistently manifest in/into/toward mastery. In order for that to happen the coach to ‘automatically default’ for example ‘integrity postures’ so the purpose-driven coaching conversation/session is at ‘mastery level’ consistently. My point here is that, we often assess for ‘outer skill-sets’ when it is often the ‘inner personality make-up’ that sets apart between practising and mastery.
As for your proposal for ICF, I am not in a position to comment at this juncture in time.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Comment by Sara Arbel, MCC on 17 October 2009:
Dear Pat, I can appreciate that these are inspiring days for us ALL. It is quite a challenge for any leadership to deal with crisis when their leadership is questioned and reevaluated. This is more of a reason to get out there and have a special force task to attend every forum and every platform and every conversation on the cyber net, create an open dialogue and open communication with the members. Get out there, answer questions, ask questions, be PRESENT, listening actively means respecting and responding to that which is being expressed, and what you are listening now to, is worry, uncertainty, confusion and unrest. Demonstrate your greatness as leaders of the community that chose you to lead. It is when leadership faces this kind of crisis that they get an opportunity to prove their greatness. They get out there and don’t wait for the storm to pass, it doesn’t work this way. The concerns expressed in these communications indicate a much greater gap between leadership and members than just the explaining of the ISO idea, can you see that?
Do not wait for it to quiet down (that’s how it is perceived now). This is a challenge that you need to face and work through it with us, not in closed doors. Let us help you. You’ve got us here gathered, so use this collective knowledge and energy to work it out together, as a organization that have common values, ideologies and vision. Be present on every Forum and Discussion. It is enough that one member expresses the feeling that they are not being listened to, for you to change your strategy.
With deep appreciation of the challenge and much trust that we will All benefit from this evolutionary process. Sara Arbel, MCC, Israel.
Comment by Sara Arbel, MCC on 17 October 2009:
Hi Billy, I would like to answer your great questions, you ask : “So does this mean that whether a coach is credentialed or not, at the end of the day, it is how the coach ‘performs’ and the results of the coaching turning out to be congruent to the coachee and the stakeholders needs, that really matter?”
Answer: Yes, a definite Yes, let’s look at it from another angle, if you listen to music and throughout the adventure of listening you stumble upon a musical piece that causes your heart to miss one beat, your soul expands, you feel great and happy, or moved and sentimental, you will get out there in search of the same sound, lyric or melody. You will be in search for the same explosion of feeling and senses which that performer of that specific music created for you. Later on you will be on the look out for same genre from other performers. That Is the only benchmark you will have, these are the only criteria, quality and standards which at the end of the day will sell. If that is called MCC or YadaYada it doesn’t matter, you can attach to it whatever name you wish, at the end of the day the Mastery of your performance will bring food to your table.
Credentialing provides a name for a benchmark/standard a guiding arrow a path for the coach to follow through his professional development; a stepping stone to exceed his performance and potential. And yes, in the global community of coaches, we have coaches that ‘outperformed’ many MCC’s in given contexts and aren’t ICF credentialed members.
You ask: “How do we assess for the ‘inner personality make-up’ that determines if a coach is or has the potential to reach mastery level?” – answer: We Do Not. The inner personality make up can hold water for the first stage of creating a relationship, but most of our clients are not buying only a relationship, they need the ‘TRUTH’ and by giving that to them it’s not enough to have great chemistry with them, it needs much more than that. The more ambitious they are, the higher they achieve in their careers or life, the greater their search for that coach that will mirror to them that ‘ Truth’, with which they can exceed more.
You ask: “What needs to be considered in the ICF revamp of the credentialing system?”
Answer: I believe that – a. ICF need to consider moving to the next level of the credentialing system by honoring only 2 credentials PCC and MCC. – b. The PCC holders should be expected to move to MCC in a period of 5 years. – c. The credentialed coaches need to prove to ICF a constant professional engagement in teaching or mentoring or supervising other coaches as well as proof of continuing education from different disciplines out of the coaching arena, to enrich their skills such as psychology, social work, finances, business management etc……..
d. The MCC coaches need to have x hours of contribution to the community, to the worlds deprived or suffering, to the third world economy. It should be ICF’s ideological interest and task to designate MCC coaches to different humanitarian global tasks. ICF should find itself connected to UNICEF, UNESCO, RED CROSS, and WAR VETERANS etc… Organizations that will feed ICF with potential projects for the most important flag that we all carry, and that is the bettering of the world we live in. A MCC credentialed coach will not be able to renew their credential without proof of being part of that task on Pro Bono basis. – e. There should be a complete transparency of the governance of the organization, this is the only condition for the survival of this body of professionals that seek a roof over their recognition and acknowledgment. We need to remember that we are still in the process of positioning the profession globally, today we still experience more confusion than clarity in the field, and the ISO idea contributes to it. – d. The leadership of the organization needs to walk the talk, we cannot preach for something and act differently, creative, intelligent and inspiring leaders recruit each and every member of their follower to achieve the organization’s vision. These leaders create a constant dialogue that inspire and move that massive energy of the members toward the realization of the leadership’s greatness. I remember Thomas Leonard, with all his faults which we all knew, he inspired us to develop and contribute our energy and time, our ingenuity and creativity to reach the goals and targets he set for us, we were all working for him with a sense of pleasure and excitement, he was in constant communication, reporting and sharing, all was open and transparent. I know that we are today larger, but, we are smarter, wiser and more experienced.
Well, Billy, thank you for asking questions and for inspiring me to these answers.
Sara Arbel, MCC, Israel
Comment by Pat Mathews on 16 October 2009:
Hi Fran – all recordings are posted on the ICF blog and there are lots of conversations going on – including active listening. This forum isn’t the only communication that exists! Thanks for the comment! Pat
Comment by Fran Dutton on 16 October 2009:
I’m glad Pat M. has chimed in on what the ICF is doing, but I think she missed the point and I know she meant well by saying that the ICF is “active listening.” She’s actually doing what is called passive listening, not active listening. A person who is doing active listening frequently shares his or her understanding of what he or she is hearing; that’s the nutshell definition of active as compared to passive listening.
I think I agree with Rey’s suggestion about the ICF needing to go further than just Telling what they’re doing and instead spend some time Demonstrating what they’re doing.
Comment by Pat Mathews on 16 October 2009:
Hi Jonathan and other contributors – we’re collecting all comments from all sources during this open comment period on the proposed schema – including here on Coaching Commons, Linked In, ICF blog (icfheadquarters.blogspot.com), the special email address that has been set up (isocomments@coachfederation.org), the many phone forums that have been held and the ones still to come, an open meeting that’s planned at the ICF conference and of course the many individual and chapter conversations that we’ve had with members and credential holders around the globe. As you can imagine it is a big task to collect and group so many rich comments in a way that anyone would have the patience to read! Specific feedback won’t be provided until the comment period is complete since we won’t have all the comments till then! The Board will have a lot to consider. So, I wouldn’t interpret fewer comments on this one communication mechanism as a “choosing to stay silent”, but more of an active listening. And, of course, if there are unanswered questions, we’re happy to respond to those to provide any clarity that might be missing.
Thanks for the question and your perspectives.
Pat Mathews
Chair, ICF Credentialing and Program Accreditation Committee
Comment by Rey Carr on 16 October 2009:
It could be that my remarks are considered “cynical,” even if I don’t see them that way. But what I think people would appreciate is less commenting from ICF people about “listening” or only contributing when a person has something “productive” to say and more demonstration of listening or a better indication of understanding the comments.
I’m really surprised, for example, that not one ICF rep has summarized the comments so far either here at the Coaching Commons, on LinkedIn, from the bridgeline discussion, or from the two other discussion groups that have examined this issue. Such paraphrasing or summarizing would go a long way to dismissing the mistrust. This is a common practice in mediation and coaching, and would be quite valuable here.
Rey Carr
http://www.twitter.com/Rey_Carr
Comment by Ed Modell on 16 October 2009:
Jonathan-
Speaking just for myself and not the entire ICF Board, I want to assure you that I am reading all of the comments on this Coaching Commons thread, on the related LinkedIn thread and on the new ICF blog, and I am doing my best to take in everything being said. I share Krissy Jackson’s view that it is just great that there has been so much interest in this topic and so many great ideas expressed.
I really haven’t found it that productive to try to answer every comment because the few times I have commented, I have gotten really cynical remarks back, and I understand there is a great deal of anger and mistrust out there. I’m also a mediator so I am trained not to take cynicism personally, but I also don’t want to stir the pot to make matters even worse.
So please don’t take my silence on this thread as a lack of interest or some pact on behalf of the ICF Board to remain silent. When I have something productive to add, I will do it. In the meantime, I am listening intently.
Ed Modell
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 16 October 2009:
This started out as a dialog that included supporters of the move to ISO-based credentialing.
It appears that those participants are no longer engaging in this dialog here. Points are being made and questions raised, without any reaction from members of the ICF board or credentialing committee.
Is this just my perception, or are there some key voices that are choosing to stay silent here (we have been told that all of these venues are being read)? Were the announcements about phone calls and the meeting at the conference also meant to let us know that there wouldn’t be responses elsewhere or until sometime in the future? Perhaps the feedback process intended by the board could be made more explicit.
Jonathan
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 15 October 2009:
Sara, you hit it on the nail with your statement: “It is our performance that attaches value to the designation and not vice versa.” So does this mean that whether a coach is credentialled or not, at the end of the day, it is how the coach ‘performs’ and the results of the coaching turning out to be congruent to the coachee and the stakeholders needs, that really matter?
Credentialling only provides a benchmark/standard (credible to whom?) at which level of mastery one has been assessed on. Ideally, in my opinion, there should be distinct ’skill sets’ at ACC, PCC & MCC levels.
However, being credentialled does not validate & equate to performance. In the real world, we have non-credentialled coaches who ‘outperformed’ in given contexts, within the same coaching contract; and also cases of ACCs/PCCs ‘outperforming’ MCCs, (probably and I am only guessing) because the ‘chemistry’ of the coach-coachee relationships could be the pivotal points toward ‘coaching performance’. So, how do we assess for ability in ‘instant chemistry generation & sustainment’ although rapport skills, and other coaching skills like holding the purpose-driven conversation, etc., can be assessed to a certain extent? How do we assess for the ‘inner personality make-up’ that determines if a coach is or has the potential to reach mastery level?
If there are ‘gaps’ between being credentialled (even within those credentialled at diferent levels) and COACHING PERFORMANCE (which is one of the ultimate measurement for coaching effectiveness); what does this indicate what needs to be considered in the ICF revamp of the credentialling system?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Comment by Sara Arbel,MCC on 15 October 2009:
I thought that my credentials are effective as long as I keep the cutting edge of the profession’s evolutionary process, as long as I am on a continuing studies track.
I don’t present my credentials to my clients, they don’t know I am an MCC, but holding these credentials keeps me on track of Mastering my professionalism, holding on to these credentials, sharpens my saw and evolves me as a human being and as a coach. Since I earned my MCC, I have never stopped studying different methodologies, expending my knowledge, developing new methodologies and evolving through the process of being a life student. Knowing that at the end of these 3 years I need to produce proof of investing in my professionalism in order to earn my MCC is a great catalyst for an ongoing mastery of my skills, adding value to my clients’in expending their evolutionary progress in life and business.
The designation of the MCC which I hold is not for my clients, it is for me, it is a continuing measure of me in search for excellence, diversity and top notch performance. It is in the state of mind,professional confidence and the quality me clients recognize.
I have the honor to work with leading figures in companies such as Microsoft, Intel and others. I don’t present myself to them as an MCC, as most of them they are referred to me by other satisfied clients. All they know is that due to the work we are doing together, my clients, exceed in their performance. It is only then they refer to my MCC as a benchmark of the criteria, in comparison with other coaches.
It is our performance that attaches value to the designation and not vice versa.
It is not the piece of paper that states the designation; it is the professional value our performance attaches to it.
In a profession that is just in it’s diapers, it is too early to put it under strict closed boundaries, we need to let it grow (and not let it go ), cultivate it and support it’s evolutionary process which is just in it’s early growing stages. The word “Coach” is still on loan from sports, we are still in the process of designing a separate identity.
One thing we all have in common, we are all explorers, adventurers and very passionate to better the world for us All.
Sara Arbel, MCC, Israel
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 14 October 2009:
Our growth, transformations, re-births, etc., be they personal, organizational, professional, or community-wise, require us to:
* let go of our existing credentials (in the context of ICF credentialling – ACC, PCC & MCC: how easy or difficult is it for us to letting go of our ACC, PCC or MCC credentials?)
* embrace the ‘new’ (may it be a revamp of the existing ACC, PCC or MCC credentialing system, or ISO registration, or a new approach)
* commit to managing the risk going into ‘unknown territories’ (what will the impact be or the change means to us as coaches, to our clients, to our other stakeholders, and the general public/communities?)
* come up with innovative, creative strategies to sustain & propel us to greater heights (what processes, structures, systems, environments, people practices, etc. that will have to be put in place to move us holistically towards achievements of our respective missions and visions?)
From the strategic perspective of ICF, how significant and necessary is it to have a credible coach credentialling system? What would be questions to be explored and answered in order ‘close the gaps’ in a credible coach credentialling system?
From the perspective of the clients, how important is the coach’s credentials compared to the actual coach-coachee relationships?
To the perspective of the other stakeholders, what would be the compelling reasons to engage only a credentialed coach? How would one validate that any credentialed coach will or will not perform up to mark?
To the general public and communities, what validation processes are available to ascertain which coach credentialing systems and from which credentialing bodies is producing credentialed coach that will CONSISTENTLY deliver ‘coaching values’, ‘coach performance outputs/outcomes’, and ‘making the true differences’ for the clients?
What coaching processes could be engaged and put into practise in this current ‘coach credentialing’ discussions?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia
Comment by Rey Carr on 14 October 2009:
Thanks, Sam, for such a rich, bigger picture perspective. I particularly liked your question: “Isn’t it a good thing that these coaching skills are transferable and can be easily used by anybody who is interested?”
At this stage in the evolution of coaching, our urge ought to be inclusion not exclusion, cooperation not separation, and joining not purging.
Someone has already pointed out that credentialism is a way for organizations to avoid due diligence, deflect accountability, and ignore the transformative issues you mention.
Thanks also for bring the Spirit of Laura Whitworth into this worthy discussion at the Coaching Commons.
Comment by Sam House on 14 October 2009:
You know how, in key moments of evolution or transformation, there comes a time when a developmental leap to the next evolutionary stage must take place, and at that precise moment the organism or system will do all it can to resist that leap and to fortify the existence it knows in order to prevent the change?
The ICF, along with the rest of the human species, is on the verge of shifting from the belief that our world is rational, logical, and quantifiable, to an understanding that it is more unpredictable, less linear and more intuitive than we have ever understood it to be. And yet, the ICF is marching forward with the belief that, with the right set of codified methods, techniques, standards, and protocols in place, the profession can be predictably measured as it is guided down its path…
In truth, I don’t think we can do this using ISO standards, any more than all the smartest mathematicians and analysts could accurately use their forecasting expertise to predict the collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market and the subsequent downfall of the global economy in 2008. Sometimes we can shape the direction of things. Sometimes we can’t. Knowing with certainty what we can control and what we can’t is impossible. Exactly how things unfold is often a mystery. Yet, we will often take credit for designing a rational methodology to obtain certain results. Sometimes our rational methods are responsible for the results they produce; sometimes they aren’t…
I believe that for us to advance as a profession, we must be able to hold multiple realities at the same time. There is the reality of standards–a very left-brain, rational approach to shaping the growth and development of our profession. There is also the reality of an in-the-moment, person-to-person experience in the emotional field – very right-brain intuitive/relational approach to shaping the growth and development of our profession.
I worry that the ICF seeks to legitimize its identity in the larger world through this strong emphasis on the “rational method”, using the ISO. I am concerned that the further codifying and quantifying of the profession will undermine those stunning ‘first moment’ experiences that drew us – and which continue to draw others – into the profession…I am not resisting the need to rely upon standards to guide the growth and development of the profession. I think standards are quite important. However, I don’t think the profession should rely too heavily on the “credibility” granted to us, as coaches, by an independent entity.
At its core, our profession continues to be based on what Laura Whitworth, one of the pioneers of coaching, often described as basic human skills, which we happen to apply under an umbrella called “coaching”. The ability to listen deeply to another, to acknowledge, champion, challenge, provide a rich metaphor, give a meta-view, identify values, look at different perspectives, and practice staying present in the moment with a client–these are all things that humans do all the time, even when we’re not coaching.
Isn’t it a good thing that these coaching skills are transferable and can be easily used by anybody who is interested? Why create more separation around these skill sets, through the use of independently contrived standards, when the natural wholeness that is evoked from a coaching conversation is what needs to be spread, like a virus, across the globe?. As a coach, I can apply any one of the above skills in a technically proficient manner with one client and it will nonetheless be useless. I can use the same exact words with another client and my intervention will be masterful.
What’s the difference? The difference, once the techniques of using these skills are understood, lies in my ability as a human to connect with another human in a meaningful way. The unique and transformative quality of that connection is found in the experience itself. A human connection cannot be codified. It is ineffable and inexplicable.
Comment by Ruth Ann Harnisch on 14 October 2009:
Joan Cook writes that it could be inferred from my comments that it doesn’t matter who is a coach.
I hope nobody makes that Grand Canyon sized leap.
But in case anyone was left with the impression that I don’t think it matters who’s a coach, my record of service to the field speaks loudly otherwise. I’ve invested heavily in dollars and time in the effort to professionalize the field, to spur academic research, to support nonprofits involved in coaching, to make credentialing a rational event, to create ways for the public to learn about coaching so they can make intelligent, informed choices about the coaches they hire.
I think coaching skills matter a great deal, and that’s why I’m working to make them available to all. I wish every conversation could be infused with the best coaching skills.
I don’t think it matters whether a coach has a specific credential, and I don’t think a credential is a guarantee of good coaching skills. I hope this eliminates inference.
Comment by Joan T Cook on 14 October 2009:
Ruth Ann,
I disagree that the comparison to the accounting profession is a “false assumption.”
It could be inferred from your post that because coaching is a “very different, softer skill set” as compared to accounting, it doesn’t matter who does it. Amateurs (people with little experience or training) shouldn’t be doing accounting, but they shouldn’t be calling themselves coaches, either.
Keep in mind that the competitive advantage a company enjoys is not because they have crack technical experts. Competitive advantage rests in the so-called “soft skills;” the Gallup Q12 survey (on which Marcus Buckingham’s books were based) consisted of all “soft” questions, yet the survey showed that companies that take these seriously enjoy a documented competitive advantage that translates into better performance and better business results (the documentation is in the back of “First, Break All the Rules”).
In order to have that “deep conversation” be entirely about the other person, and not about you, requires a high level of personal development (in order not to get “hooked” by the person’s situation) and a skill set that is hardly innate, to my way of thinking, given the human propensity to want to talk about ourselves. It requires personal effort and personal work as well as training and experience.
Point being that there IS something to a true, effective coaching conversation, and we now have the tools and the research to better define what that is and why it’s important–and we need to get busy. ISO notwithstanding, it’s high time we revisit the entire credentialing process, as I’ve stated previously.
Joan T. Cook, MCC
Comment by Marion Franklin on 14 October 2009:
Hi Rey,
I’m certainly not an expert on understanding the ICF distinctions. However, as a coach trainer with an ‘approved’ coaching program, I have an interpretation of the difference between that and ‘accredited.’
Accredited are full-fledged programs/schools that include examinations and hours that fully satisfy the ICF requirements for PCC or MCC such as CoachU. They have submitted recordings and paperwork that demonstrate ICF standards towards the certification requirements.
Approved are programs or courses offered that are sanctioned by ICF as meeting criteria that satisfy either Core Competencies, Personal Development, Business Building, or Other Related Skills and Tools. They can be ongoing or one time events and because of their content, they have been reviewed and approved by ICF towards credentialing or renewal of. (typically offering CCEUs)
Hope that clarifies – and if I’m not accurate, I’m sure someone will tweak this explanation.
Best regards,
Marion Franklin, MS, MCC
Comment by Rey Carr on 14 October 2009:
The recent addition of a blog to the ICF website is definitely a step in the right direction. When I was a member of the ICF I urged the association for several years to include a forum on some type for members to provide feedback, network, and help each other.
One other area that the ICF needs to work on is the disclosure of the relationships between the ICF and (1) schools they accredit; (2) schools they approve; (3) their “preferred providers;” and (4) those schools or services that “advertise” on the ICF website and in their newsletter. The new FTC regulations that go into effect on December 1, 2009 will definitely require them to disclose any financial or other relationship with these entities and place that information in a public area. I hope the ICF is attending to these new regulations. (And I hope that other coaches with blogs who engage in endorsements or testimonials are also paying attention to these FTC regulations.)
In an interview with the leader of the BBC’s executive coaching service that appeared in the October 2009 issue of The Bulletin of the Association for Coaching, she said: “that employers aren’t as hung up on coach’s accreditation as coaches are. Research from the states shows that accreditation is way down the list of criteria for buyers of coaching.” (Note that in Europe the term “accreditation” typically means certification of an individual; whereas in North America the term “accreditation” is mostly applied to organizations (such as colleges, universities, schools, etc. This difference can cause some confusion.)
One puzzle that I have not been able to figure out yet is the difference between what the ICF calls an “approved” coach training program and what they call an “accredited” coach training program. I understand the two categories and that they are separate listings on the ICF website, but what are the actual differences? Why are there two categories? Do these two categories reflect some qualitative difference between schools listed as “approved” and schools listed as “accredited.” Maybe someone can help with this because requests to the ICF for clarification did not yield any further insights.
Comment by Ruth Ann Harnisch on 13 October 2009:
Please let me modify the glib statement “Clients don’t care.” I should have been more careful with my words, and I apologize.
As a member of the ICF who received a copy of the organization’s research, I know that some clients care. The research makes a convincing case that credentials are not of primary importance to a majority of those surveyed. But for some clients, the credential is the only thing they care about because it is a safe corporate choice
At least a half-dozen HR people have told me they feel requiring an ICF certification is a foolproof way of covering themselves against accusations of hiring incompetent quacks. Most people outside of coaching know very little about the field and its politics. They know what they can Google, and the ICF owns that game.
They have done a good job of selling “the gold standard,” and absent any independent assessments or governing bodies, their credential is the most widely known and therefore the go-to requirement for corporate hiring. I admire this public relations success!
As for the comparison with the accounting profession, that’s a false comparison. Accounting calls for precision in numbers and adherence to a huge body of case law and Internal Revenue Service regulations. Amateurs simply can’t – and shouldn’t – do it.
But coaching is a very different, softer skill set.
Many clients are not in the market for “the gold standard” of coaches. Their needs differ. Their budgets differ. Some clients are not able to appreciate or pay for the most highly educated and experienced coaches.
Dave Buck, speaking at an ICF Conference, said “You can’t legislate deep conversation.” Since coaching is not therapy or consulting, what kind of certification does one need to engage in a deep conversation?
I have long been on record in favor of an international registry of professional coaches who have signed on to a code of ethics and agreed to accept mediation to settle disputes. The registry would list the coach’s training, certification if any, testimonials, and other relevant information.
Let the client choose the coach based on the standards that are important to him/her.
I apologize for the inaccurate and casual assertion that “Clients don’t care.” I know some clients care very much indeed.
Comment by Joan T Cook on 13 October 2009:
Fran,
I’m not an “ICF representative.” I’m a member and I volunteer as an assessor, plus I hold a credential (that I worked hard for, I might add), but I have no official status and don’t speak for the organization. The opinions expressed herein are strictly my own
As to your comment, I stand by what I wrote, as an executive coach working in Fortune 100 companies. I agree that the credential counts for nothing without experience; increasingly, experience isn’t enough – companies also want to know that there’s an independent body that says you know what you’re doing, as well. I’ve certainly been asked for my credentials in addition to my experience. Please also see Karen Wright’s comment on this topic.
Joan T. Cook, MCC
Comment by Fran Dutton on 13 October 2009:
It’s somewhat disconcerting when ICF representatives try to make a case that clients care about credentialing. They typically use less than compelling evidence to counter assertions such as stated by Ruth Ann Harnisch. It would make more sense if the ICF reps actually read the research on this topic and then used their own anecdotal data to provide a better explanation for why the data continually shows that credentials (that is, certification) ranks much lower than experience when choosing a coach at the corporate level.
Comment by Karen Wright on 13 October 2009:
Just a quick corroboration of Joan’s point re “clients do care.” In fact, in many of the large scale organizational coaching RFP processes, the ICF credential (or lack thereof) is a first filter for who gets to proceed to the next level of submission. In particular, the Master level distinction has value in the eyes of the corporate decision-maker, who in many cases has taken their own coach training. So to flatten the system, or do away with it altogether, is to ignore the needs of a large (and growing), not to mention influential, customer group.
Comment by Joan T Cook on 13 October 2009:
Ruth Ann,
I respectfully beg to differ on “clients don’t care.” If you coach executives or work in organizations, I can assure you they DO care, and they look for credentials as a way to keep themselves from getting burned by people who call themselves coaches but don’t know what they’re doing. Flawed as the process may be, a credential at least means that someone had to pass both an oral and written test (and I can tell you as an assessor that probably a good 25% of the people I assess don’t) that says they have this level of skill/experience as judged by their fellows.
There is a great deal of research going on in coaching. It’s one of the things that needs to be taken into consideration in revamping the credentialing program. We didn’t have a body of knowledge when we originally put the credentialing program together, and with membership demands outstripping our ability to keep up with them we did the best we could at the time with what we had and what we knew. The problem is that the credentialing process should have been revisited at least 5 years ago, as research became available both on coaching itself and on brain science. I have recently begun to work with the coaching certificate program being offered by Teachers College at Columbia. As academics they have been stymied trying to map their program to the ICF competencies because they really aren’t competencies–they’re a combination of skills, abilities and competencies. So to my way of thinking that’s where we need to start, rewriting the competencies so that they really ARE competencies and insuring that they’re backed up by the body of research that now exists and what we now know about the coaching process.
As far as the ICF blog goes, it’s simply late to the party. I suggested the dialog might be better off there for the reasons stated in my previous post. However, no one is trying to subvert the conversation, as far as I can tell. The only reason I’m here is because I stumbled on a link someplace; I didn’t know this site existed. Rey, 1% of the ICF membership on its blog would be 140 people–a more robust discussion from a greater representative sample than what’s occurring here among far fewer people, not all of whom have a stake in what’s happening.
BTW, last time I looked, to get a credential (actually a license) as a CPA you had to pay a school to get an accounting degree, ideally work as an accountant to get experience, and then sit for the CPA exam as administered by the Board of Accountancy (other CPA’s). Not sure how different what we do is from that, except that we don’t require the academic degree. Maybe we should, now that they exist.
Joan T. Cook, MCC
Comment by Joan T Cook on 13 October 2009:
Jonathan,
A spirited discussion/dialog among ICF credentialed coaches should have been taking place on the ICF website long before now, but couldn’t because the tools weren’t there. Hence it’s now taking place during something of a crisis on several third party sites that not a lot of people know about. There are 5,000 credentialed coaches out there…we’ve got a few dozen participating in the conversation. I don’t have a problem with that, but it would have been nice to have the discussion started and continued someplace every credentialed coach knows and can readily access.
Joan T. Cook, MCC
Comment by Ruth Ann Harnisch on 13 October 2009:
Thanks to Rey Carr for his comments about the Coaching Commons.
The Coaching Commons exists as an independent place for discussion and discovery.
As some of you know, I believe “The Emperor Has No Clothes” when it comes to certification.
Clients don’t care.
Nobody has the right to be arrogant about their certification – because your certification, wherever you got it, is made up and can not be backed up by proven research. There’s no body of academic research underpinning the requirements of anybody’s coaching credential. The people who were grandfathered in and awarded themselves ICF credentials at the outset were probably the best qualified to make a guess about what constitutes good coaching, but they were just guessing. They based their opinions on their anecdotal experience, not solid research.
The requirements for any coaching credential are still, at best, just a good guess. The academic foundation is being created. But it’s by no means an authoritative body of work such as exists for, say, the newest acknowledged specialties in psychology (such as positive psychology, part of coaching’s family tree).
Even when the research is further along, it will still be inconclusive, because coaching is a “soft science.” There are some things you can’t measure, can’t say for sure, can’t generalize about.
People have invested their life’s work (and in some cases, their life savings) in defending a credential or a credentialing process.
The ICF accredits schools and awards the credential. To get the ICF credential, you must buy into one of their approved schools and pay ICF mentor coaches. I have no issue with anyone making a living – but this is an incestuous business. It can’t be objective because it’s all designed to perpetuate the business of the ICF.
I serve on the board of the ICF Foundation, the nonprofit organization affiliated with the ICF. I’m the only member who doesn’t have an ICF credential and doesn’t intend to apply for one, ever, because of my objections as stated above.
The ICF members who serve on that board are volunteers, and most have given untold numbers of hours of service to the ICF itself. They are well-intentioned, NICE people. They are deeply committed to the promotion of the ICF and its credential.
I wish the ICF could see, as this outsider/insider does, how much the organization skirts the essence of coaching by conducting itself as the 800-lb gorilla in the field.
The effort to move this lively discussion to the newly-created ICF blog instead of recognizing where the discussion is taking place and joining in is just another example.
I know the ICF leaders are well-intentioned. Perhaps they simply don’t understand that trying to move the discussion to their blog looks like an effort to control and dominate rather than listen and engage, to wrest the conversation away from where it’s actually happening and to force it onto their territory.
Gone are the days when a few people can run any organization behind closed doors. Accountability and transparency are the new rules. We strive for that here, and we are grateful to each of you for participating in the discussion.
I wish all the smaller coaching organizations and the 800-lb gorilla could come together and create something new, relevant, and clean. Something that serves the interests of coaching, not just moneymaking and proprietary interests. But I don’t think that’s possible in the immediate future. Too many people have invested too much money, time, and ego in THEIR way.
Chris Matthews says that if people have invested a little, they will invest a lot more to defend their original investment, no matter how much evidence exists that they should not.
I think he’s right.
Comment by Rey Carr on 12 October 2009:
The Coaching Commons is providing a significant, independent, third-party space for this discussion. It is THE best place for such a discussion to take place.
The ICF blog really doesn’t matter. Be cautious about requests to place your already stated (orally or in writing) concerns on the ICF blog. Why hasn’t the ICF been able to summarize what they’ve heard so far? Why should succinct comments like Marion’s and others have to be re-written or even copy/pasted on the ICF blog. If the ICF is truly interested in feedback, then they should be able to take notes, summarize and place what they’ve learned so far on their own blog.
I can’t imagine why members of other coaching associations would want to contribute their comments on the ICF blog. The comment that “not everyone knows about The Coaching Commons” as a rationale for using the ICF blog is way off base, deflects the power of what has been included here, and considerably dilutes the time and energy contributors have for this discussion. Let the ICF prove it actually understands the feedback so far rather than just saying they appreciate the discussion. The ICF blog will be lucky to gain more than one percent of their entire membership.
Make no mistake. The individual ICF members contributing here are sincere, authentic, and dedicated. But as an organizational entity the ICF has strayed too far from it roots, the vision of the founders, and the service they provide to coaching.
Rather than tabling the ISO concept, the ICF needs to abandon the concept all together. Instead they need to initiate talks with the other coaching associations to cooperate in finding mutual ways to strengthen credentialing regardless of association allegiance.
Comment by Janet Harvey, MCC on 12 October 2009:
Hi all,
Thanks Marion for posting your thoughtful comments and ideas here;
Will you also post them on the ICF blog in the section with all of last week’s recorded sessions with members so everyone may hear you and read your comments?
http://www.coachfederation.com/blog
Not everyone knows about The Coaching Commons (although everyone is doing a great job of opening the space here!) and the opportunity of the ICF Blog that so many here encouraged is now available to support all 14K members and non-members alike.
I think we share a goal of opening as many portals of discussion as possible to facilitate idea exchange, creativity and contribution from all who are so inspired and compelled.
Cheers,
Janet Harvey, MCC
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 12 October 2009:
Hi Joan,
What do you see as the advantage of having the conversation on the ICF blog?
There are two threads in full progress – one here and one on LinkedIn. Why risk creating a third thread? What does the ICF blog offer our discussion that isn’t already available? What incentive would there be to move there, that would outweigh the risk of further fragmenting our conversation?
I realize the blog didn’t exist until recently. However, the fact that it exists now doesn’t mean it is a better solution for the ongoing discussion. So, could you please explain your rationale?
Thanks,
Jonathan
Comment by Marion Franklin on 12 October 2009:
After voicing my comments on the first open forum call, I was told to put them in writing and they would be considered. I hope that is true!
While I completely agree, as do most ICF members, that the credentialing system is in need of change, going to ISO is the equivalent of using a sledge hammer to brush teeth. It doesn’t align, make sense, or handle the REAL problem.
The place where we have the least consistency and the most subjectivity is the oral portion of the exam. ISO does NOT address this. I mentioned on the call that IAC does not have a significant number of credentialed coaches BUT they DO HAVE CONSISTENCY for those that receive the credential. They have created a training for assessors that is specific to a methodology that does not discriminate or hold bias based on one’s coach training and style.
As a mentor coach and coach trainer who has listened to hundreds if not about a thousand coaching sessions, I can see where the assessor training is critical and what makes the difference. In corresponding with Nina East, Lead Certifier for the IAC who just stepped down, she created a training program that met the criteria that ICF should consider.
The assessor training placed strong emphasis on separating coaching style from coaching substance and effectiveness. They are trained to listen not as a coach (who would have a particular style or way of questioning) but rather as an assessor. They also took into consideration diversity and cultural awareness. They created specific measures and guidelines for each mastery (equivalent of competencies).
Having gone through the ICF assessor training, and more importantly, as a mentor coach having been on feedback calls with clients who have passed the exam, the subjectivity is glaring.
In addition, ICF is working on a constant and severe backlog. If we changed to 2 recordings instead of the live portion, we could keep pace with those applying.
IAC has only one credential – pass or fail no matter how many hours and how much training. I have maintained that ICF has created entry points for coaches to get credentialed and that the main purpose is to elevate a coach’s confidence and mastery looking towards improvement. If we had consistent, non-biased (as best as possible since we are humans) criteria, I believe our credentialing framework would be superior.
Right now, it seems as though breathing and not blatantly telling are the only criteria for the ACC. It diminishes the value and purpose. While it is an entry level (and in some cases more so except for the hours requirement), if we could set consistent, measurable, less biased criteria for the oral exams, accept recordings instead of live, I do believe ICF will have achieved mastery!
Marion Franklin, MCC
Comment by Joan T Cook on 12 October 2009:
It’s getting tough trying to stay on top of this conversation when it’s occurring in several different places. It’s too bad the ICF blog was so late to the party; the most developed conversation seems to be here. And btw, there needs to be a link on the ICF home page to the blog; it’s buried so deep no one would know how to find it or that it was there.
Philip’s comment is right on, as are Karen’s and Tracy’s. Thank you for reminding all of us what the original vision was and what’s been missing for a very long time. To Sara Arbel’s question, “Does ICF feed on the roots and legacy of its founders, visionaries who are invested in the profession?” The answer is no.
A lunch at the conference to discuss the credentialing issue isn’t the right forum–it needs its own plenary session or should be the main item on the agenda at the annual meeting. I’d appreciate answers to Tracy’s questions regarding this meeting as well. Karen? Diane?
I also posted the following on the ICF blog:
It can be inferred, more from what the organization isn’t saying than what it is, that the board has no intention of backing down from its pursuit of ISO-linked credentialing. Engaging in a “dialog” is one thing; not offering to put the relentless march to ISO on hold while we figure out the best way to revamp the credentialing process (which many of us have known for quite a while needs it badly) is quite another. As one of the co-founders of ICF, someone who worked hard to help establish the credentialing process and a current assessor for PCC and MCC exams, I would respectfully request that the board table the entire ISO conversation now until we can look at it against other options which may in fact suit our unique needs far better.
Joan T. Cook, MCC
Comment by Tracy Stevens, MCC on 12 October 2009:
Thanks for the comments to look at what WE want to be going forward! Together Everyone Achieves More! Let’s come together to create greatness in ourselves as a unit. After all, isn’t that what we do with our clients? I for one want to live my values and be in full integrity with my clients and my professional organization. Let’s pull TOGETHER, let’s hear from you!
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 11 October 2009:
- If ISO is not what we should be seeking, nor the present three-tier credentialling system able to elevate coaching to the next levels, what other innovations could ICF considers (any suggestions?)?
- If ISO is the right strategic direction, should the ICF Board back down, and what needs to be done to obtain the buy-in (if ISO is the right strategic decision)?
- Could obtaining and communicating evidences to support ISO; evidences to revamp the existing three-tier credentialling system; or evidences to support new innovative approaches to credentialling help to build the case: for ISO, revamping existing three-thier system, or the new innovative approaches?
- How could ICF rally its members [minus the differring points of views (there is no right or wrong view, just that each one of us has perspectives from our own lenses based on our own sets of criteria, beliefs, consciences, etc., which we justificably see as 'legitimate' and 'appropriate'); minus each of our unique 'personalities', ways of thinking/rationales (sometimes we may be too engrossed in our emotions), intentions and the sort, etc.; focusing on the issue rather than on the ICF Board or personalities] towards the rebirth and excitement of, and about coaching?
- Are we willing to reframe and enter into the ‘frames of thoughts’ of each other (swap positions to attempt to understand each other’s perspectives) for the sake of the coaching profession?
- Bottomline, what could we do in our small parts together to resolve this issue?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Comment by Philip Cohen on 11 October 2009:
My wife was the first treasurer of ICF and I was on the Board of Directors for 5 years, serving as treasurer for 4 of those. We were both founding members and very active.
And both of us refused to renew our membership in 2008 because of the direction ICF was going.
When ICF was formed, there was a vision of creating a professional association that would not only be responsive to members, it would set a new model for how professional associations could operate. In fact, the vision was to create a new model for how non-profits and even for-profits could operate. We wanted to impact the world, not just our little corner of it.
Somehow that vision has gotten lost. We are now on the path to be just like every other association.
Maybe we grew too fast. Maybe leadership looked for the easy way, not the best way. Maybe we have relied too much on the professional managers and not enough on our own intuition and creativity. Maybe we forgot that transitions can be messy and uncomfortable. I don’t know, but do know that many of us who have been around since the beginning feel we’ve moved to mediocrity not greatness.
This conversation about credentials has sparked a larger discussion. The kind we like to have with our clients. “Who are we and who do we want to develop into? What are our strengths and how can we use them more fully?”
Tracy and others have suggested we look at ourselves in the mirror. Do we like what we see? If not, what are WE willing to do about it? Who do we want to be and what actions are we willing to take to have that? BRAVO Tracy!
ICF’s original vision was compelling. That’s the kind of organization I’d like to be part of.
Comment by Tracy Stevens, MCC on 11 October 2009:
Hello everyone,
As I sit here reflecting on all the comments, I am pulled to my personal perspective. I am not able to speak for another person, or group, but only for myself. It is in that vein that I am writing.
It is with tremendous passion for the profession of coaching that I am involved and have been for many years. It is the reason I have stepped up over the years to various responsibilities throughout the coaching community and it is why I am here today!
It is clear that there is a passionate displeasure throughout the coaching community. How can the energy being generated and multiplied be used to come together to snuff the anger that destroys and build the ICF as the Professional Organization that represents professional coaches as the “Gold Standard”. It is from this place that I have signed the “ICF Coaches Take A Stand Petition”. It is the reason for the comments I have made in this discussion thread. It is from this place that I see awesome opportunities to build.
As I asked in an earlier post – ” Is it time to shore up the foundation and rebuild?”
Let’s come together as passionate coaches, live our values, snuff any anger and evolve to the greatest professional organization representing professional coaches globally.
Again, this will take a huge effort! It will take bricks and mortar, it will take some heavy lifting … I’m willing to get involved… Who else is willing to acknowledge where we are and look to the future. Recognize the the roadblocks, help to remove them, consider all the possibilities, and take action? TOGETHER great things can happen. TOGETHER, the ICF BOD, Staff, Credentialed Coaches, ACTO, Students, etc. TOGETHER!
Respectfully,
Tracy Stevens, MCC
Comment by Diane Brennan on 10 October 2009:
Hi Jonathan,
You are absolutely right that this is a great opportunity. There are many thoughtful and passionate comments here, on other online sites, on group calls and in individual conversations. As part of the ICF Board, I appreciate the thoughts and perspectives from all who have shared.
Personally I am challenged by the online format for dialogue which is why you only hear from me sporadically. I recognize and support using the online forum, but may not reply to a lot of posts. Please know that does not mean I am not listening. I absolutely am. Diane
Comment by jsibley on 10 October 2009:
If I were in the leadership of the ICF, by now I would be thinking “Uh oh, what have we started here?”
Hopefully, I would then remember seeing Ben Zander, throw up my hands, and shout “How Fascinating!”
I believe that the issue around credentialing has opened a Pandora’s box about the governance and mission of the ICF. Perhaps it was only a matter of time before some issue served as the lightning rod for concerns about the broader issues that are coming up.
If I were in the leadership, I hope that I would be looking back at our decision-making processes and would be considering whether there were voices expressing many of these concerns over the past few years and how seriously they were listened to. This is not a quiet community and I would be surprised if many of these concerns hadn’t already been communicated even more than what has already been described in this thread.
This seems like a wonderful opportunity for the leadership of the ICF to take a hard look at what all of this feedback might be saying about previous and current governance strategies and decision-making processes and what this suggests for the future.
Comment by Rey Carr on 10 October 2009:
Michael raises some excellent points about the inappropriateness of external sources, including Prometrix determining the shape, form and direction for coaching. I really liked his use of Amazon as an example of shedding the status quo.
The ICF has gone off the rails in the last few years. It has lost the center that was so clearly marked and anchored when Thomas Leonard started the organization and Cheryl Richardson was president. A step backward at this time would be a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the ICF’s recent decision to put a hold on the ISO discussion is in fact a step backward or even forward. In reality it’s a way to diffuse the growing critique and increasing dissatisfaction with the organization. What, in fact, was the ICF apologizing for? Are they apologizing for criticizing their own credentialing system? The one that hundreds of volunteers put thousands of hours into devising and thousands of coaches have put hundreds of hours into attaining.
Sure, there were minor glitches with the credential processing, but these could have been easily remedied and there was no shortage of suggestions as to how to do this. And paradoxically, the more the ICF mentioned the reason for moving to ISO, the more they actually strengthened the reasons for staying with the current model.
If the ICF really wants to move in the direction of innovation and leadership, they need to start actively discussing a number of issues with the other coaching associations. Stop trying to create an ICF-centric coaching world. It’s ironic that they call their newsletter “Coaching World” when it really ought to be called “ICF World,” since they never mention anything associated with coaching that doesn’t have to do with the ICF.
Put the leadership efforts into cooperation and collaboration on a national and international scale for the benefit of all coaches around the world. Completely drop the ISO smokescreen, and generate actual benefits for coaches and coaching.
Comment by michael stratford on 9 October 2009:
Someone please, please explain to me like I was a six year old, WHY we are attempting to upgrade OUR profession by using tools of OTHER professions.
1. Have we no intelligence in our own community capable of generating a process of clarifying competency within our profession?
2. have we no creativity in a community, ostensibly known as living the distinction “discovery process” vs. “copycat process”?
3. have we no courage to go into an uncertain future with potentially a model as yet unseen in the professional world of credentialling and competency clarification?
4. Have we no time at a conference for a more full and open discussion than to simply cram it into a ‘luncheon meeting’ attempting to converse over mouthfulls of food about something so pivotal to the membership’s future?
this whole process is GREAT….
It is having more people engage than I’ve seen for years. Whether the topic be governance, board communication, the presence and effectiveness of a managing company, a critical process and procedure going forward, or simply the question “What is the value of having a credential in the first place?” I love it all, or rather, mostly all.
The only parts I don’t love are when we appear to be incongruent with our own philosophy of self direction and discovery and abdicate our sense of possiblity in the emerging future, for the sake of conforming to someone else’s ‘industry standards’ that are not applicable to our profession because we are not of those industries in the first place. Prometrix has NEVER seen true coaching before and therefore, has no clue how to measure us, nor do any of their existing procedures apply to something as unique as coaching can be and often is. I ask this…Did Amazon succumb to previous business models for bookstores that said you must have warehouses full of inventory and brick and mortar locations in order to be viable? Clearly not….
And to deny the difference between coaching and other professions, is to deny the genesis of coaching. that is…there was nothing like it serving the needs it serves and thus it was born. Especially since we didn’t need more of the same methodologies of personal and professional development with just a different name.
Coaching is unique…and therefore, our forms, structures, processes and yes, even our credentialling if one is need, MUST be unique in order to reflect our birth. If we do not do that and persist down the path of others’ expertise to determine OUR path, then coaching will die from ’sameness disease’ and cease to have ANY market distinction.
Comment by Tracy Stevens, MCC on 9 October 2009:
I was just on one of the open forum calls where Janet Harvey stated there would be a luncheon meeting at the ICF Annual Conference, and also stated in the October 8th letter from ICF President Karen Tweedie. The topic of the discussion has been identified as an opportunity for the membership to share comments on the topic of ISO Credentialing. She further stated those attending the conference would receive an invitation to the meeting.
• Have I understood correctly that only individuals attending the conference will be permitted to attend this important meeting?
• Will the meeting be open to all member of the ICF whether or not the member is attending the conference?
• Did I also understand, from Coaching World, that this meeting will be during lunch and for 1 hour only?
Comment by Ed Modell on 9 October 2009:
Jonathan-
That’s an interesting question you raise as to the relationship between the proposed ISO process for creating a credential and ICF’s longstanding policy of favoring self-regulation of coaching. While using the ISO process could support self-regulation, that was not the reason for choosing the ISO process. As I understand it, what we were after was an externally validated process for obtaining a credential and to further ensure the public about the quality or competence of coaches who obtained the credential.
I have been working with the ICF Regulatory Committee for almost 4 years now and, as you may know, the issue of self-regulation of coaching has become a pretty hot topic in its own right, with some coaches expressing the view that coaching should be subject to some form of governmental regulation or licensing. I’m curious as to your thoughts on that and perhaps we should start another thread for a discussion on self vs. governmental regulation of coaching.
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 9 October 2009:
The coach certifying/credentialling body that engages its ‘marketing genius’ and branding (to be the ONLY CHOICE for all clients) will ultimately win recognition and be in the pivotal position to define what coaching should be, showing & evidencing consistent results for their respective clients via its certified/credential members? My absurd prediction is that somewhere in our world, there will be a coach credentialling/certifying body (now still ‘hibernating’) that will emerge/rise in the very near future?
So far, has any coach certifying/credentialling body able to obtain concrete feedbacks on the reliability, consistency, efficiency & effectiveness of the coaching performances of its certified/credentialled members? How often are we hearing of the ineffectiveness or ‘poor performances’ of credentialled/certified coaches?
There are no reliable datas/evidences that credentialled/certified coaches that I know of, that can verify and validate that anyone credentialled/certified as a coach at whichever levels from any of the existing coach credentialling/certifying Organizations are able to show consistency in coaching performances of their members? Where are the statistics for this? Where are the evidences that support or refute this? What could this tells us?
So, is credentialling necessary, or should there be self-regulation or should we open up for determination by the market? Is the market ’smart enough’ to choose the appropriate coach?
On a personal note, my opinion is that, among others, the basic measurements include as long as the client is experiencing congruencies, feels that he/she has found meanings, benefits and attainments in the coaching relationships, and achieves what was set out to attain in the coaching relationship, it does not really matter if the coach is credentialled/certified or not.
So should we as coaches ask ourselves: “What does being credentialled/certified mean to us and what does the coach’s credentials/certifications mean to our clients?” Perhaps through reflection, we could locate the answers we seek and become the wiser?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Comment by Karen Wright on 9 October 2009:
Hi, Michael – not pedantic at all, rather a good call to pay attention to the big and the small as this whole debacle unfolds and we ultimately move towards the appropriate solution. I agree that my choice of language was suboptimal – and that whatever we implement must reflect the fluidity necessary to grow and evolve with our work and our collective and individual presence. Thanks for holding the high standard.
K.
Comment by Sara Arbel on 9 October 2009:
I truly believe that what we are facing now is a symptom of a greater challenge, and therefore, here are few questions I have been pondering with, for the past few days:
1.Does ICF strive for transparency and democracy? “Transparency is evidence of an organization’s moral health, even when the leaders resist it; it is inescapable – in our era – transparency is often a matter of survival”. Warren Bennis & James O’Toole.
2.Does ICF feed on the roots and legacy of its founders, visionaries who are invested in the profession? (Creating a collective knowledge base by honoring the owners of that knowledge). Or reinventing itself each year???
3.Do we (as members of ICF) follow common Goals and Vision? If yes what are they today and what are the objectives to reach them? Is each member recruited to the task??
4.Does my organization make sure that I address my resources to the highest quality of a coaching education?
5.Does the organization I belong to; promote equal opportunities for the global population to benefit from coaching services in spite of their financial or geographic challenges. (serving society)
6.Is ICF a non profit professional organization (like the bar association) or do we want it to become a GOOGLE (as one of the member of ethics committee stated proudly)?
7.Does the organization work on increasing the public’s understanding of the profession and the professionalism in the field, world wide?
8.Is the organization run by professional coaches that relate to challenges from a coaching perspective and carry the flag for us all?
9.Name 4 reasons that make you proud to be ICF members?
10.Who are we being when we promote our business as accredited ICF coaches?
Well, these are the questions for which I don’t have clear answers as yet. I hope that this initiative and the voice that is clearly sound mostly by the pioneers of the profession will not be dismissed with a statistic statement saying that “we expected resistance, and this is yet less quantity than expected. People resist change, etc”.
If we look at the numbers of the MCC’s, PCC’s on the list, we are looking at a huge qualitive volume of the professionals that are keeping the integrity and the science of the profession’s positioning in the marketplace world wide; there lies the power, in quality and not in quantity; it is not an organization of insurance or real-estate agents, where quantity creates purchase power for the benefit of the client. We as members of a global coaching organization; create value to the quality of lives and to the quality of business performance for our clients.
Sara Arbel, MCC – Tel – Aviv, Israel, October 7, 2009
Comment by Angela Spaxman, President, International Association of Coaching on 9 October 2009:
I’m extremely grateful for the quality of this conversation, to all contributors, and for the depth of insight it affords me into what is needed from a coaching organization.
I want to pick up on one of Jonathan’s original questions that has also been addressed in part by several commentators: “What is the ideal credentialing process for coaching?” But before we can answer that we must first consider “what is the purpose of credentialing coaches?”
As Michael has pointed out, credentialing has been seen as a way to help coaches gain business by increasing their credibility. However credentialing has not been very effective for two reasons: 1) most importantly that it is not very convincing to clients who often choose their coaches based on other more personal criteria, and 2) most credentialing requires so much experience that the additional credibility is no longer as necessary as it is for beginning coaches.
I have been contemplating this issue for several years and I have come up with this list of reasons to have a coach credentialing process:
1) to help coaches benchmark their own level of mastery in order to increase their self-confidence and learn how they can be better;
2) to create a common understanding of what masterful coaching is, in a broad context since masterful coaching is highly diverse and destined to become more so as it penetrates markets worldwide;
3) to educate the consumer such that they are sufficiently informed to choose coaches that satisfy their needs;
4) to help coach training organizations benchmark their effectiveness and to encourage them to create masterful coaches as efficiently as possible;
5) to help effective coaches who do not have other means of proving themselves to gain credibility
Are there any other reasons? Are any of these flawed?
If these are our purposes, then some of the standard parts of most credentialing systems stand in our way. Using hours of experience as a measure is counter-productive for Reason #5 and contributes only minimally to Reasons 1, 2 and 4. Using hours of education with a specified curriculum could be useful for reasons 1, 2, 3 and 5, but it is counter-productive for reason 4. When curriculums and training hours are set, training organizations are encouraged to NOT innovate.
If these are our reasons, then the IDEAL way to credential coaches would be to test and evaluate against certain criteria.
Testing and evaluating, even if imperfect, is a tremendous step in satisfying Reason 1. The criteria alone, (the ICF Coaching Competencies or the IAC Coaching Masteries or others) go a long way towards achieving Reasons 2 and 3. The complete satisfaction of Reason 3 probably depends on the reach of the system in particular markets. More global agreement on what coaching is, between many organizations, would be very useful.
For Reason 4, removing the requirements for hours of training and experience challenges coach training organizations to produce masterful coaches as quickly as possible enabling them to market their success. We do want more effective coaches, don’t we? We can start measuring what we want as a result (masterful coaches) instead of measuring only milestones that are not relevant for everyone.
And finally this system would satisfy Reason 5 by allowing masterful coaches with non-traditional learning paths to get credentialed as soon as they can prove their capability.
We know from experience that it is very difficult to evaluate coaching. The ICF has noted that this part of their system (the oral exam) has been the most challenging to consistency and fairness and the most difficult to resource. The proposed ISO does not appear to address these shortfalls as far as I can tell.
The IAC has been certifying coaches by testing and evaluating exclusively since our inception in 2003, and we are making it work while upholding very high standards for coaching. (I’m the current President.) Many training organizations use this method to evaluate their students and no doubt have additional experience we can learn from. If the resources of the ICF were brought to bear on this solution, I’m sure we could make a lot of progress.
Coaching is subtle and complex and we can never be 100% objective. However, as Michael has explained, we may not need to be perfect. We are not endangering anyone. And pursuing this avenue further has great advantages. It fulfills our best reasons for having a credentialing system in the first place, and it also forces us to learn more about what masterful coaching really is, and how we can identify it, in all the ways it is expressed. It frees us from the bureaucratic systems of counting hours and binds us to the need to learn more about our methods and results.
I’m not sure that this approach is the ultimate answer or what problems may arise as we pursue it. But I am sure it is a step into the future following our highest ideals, rather than defensive positions. And I think it provides a path full of useful discovery rather than simply copying what has come before.
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 8 October 2009:
I’m curious.
One topic that seems not to have come up at all is the concern many have about staying self-regulated as an industry. Has that been a factor in the push for ISO based credentialing? Should we assume that if it hasn’t come up in these discussions, that means it hasn’t been a factor?
Comment by michael stratford on 8 October 2009:
Hi Karen…
I would seek for us to re-language the notion of ‘identification’ into something more akin to clarification for the public. clarification for the public has and inherent fluidity that allows for ongoing evolution and upgrading, whereas identification has an energy of rigidity and finite application. I would love to see us support the perception of the public by offering them clarity of the fact of skill, and an experiential recognition of mastery by those of their peers who can witness the presence of that mastery and declare it to be there, or not.
I know it may seem like a pedantic exercise to focus on our language and yet when we consider it all…the language we use is the manifestation of our presence.
Comment by Karen Wright on 8 October 2009:
Nicely said, Michael. I share your view that having an MCC is in and of itself not an indicator of skill, let alone mastery, and a poor coach will not be successful, at least not for long, no matter what designation they carry nor how many tests they have passed. And I do take exception to any process that runs the risk of creating or rewarding homogeneity.
I do think, however, that it’s useful from a marketplace perspective to have some barometer of relative experience, which can sometimes be related to skill, and so can often therefore serve as an initial filter in the selection process. I also think there is value in evidence of having completed relevant education. The intersection of education and experience is where I would start, then, to create a system of identification, which I do think has value in the marketplace.
Thanks, as always, for your eloquent and wise insights.
K.
Comment by michael stratford on 8 October 2009:
This whole conversation makes me wonder why we are “credentialling’ in the first place vs. simply clarifying for the public our perceived levels of mastery. There is something twinging around the edges of my awareness that indicates a fundamental challenge in the notion of ‘credentialling.”
Who seeks credentials? Often it’s people who need credibility in a business or profession wherein harm can be done, or it’s someone seeking a job and looking for some “impartial” body to vet their ability.
And yet, how many doctors have committed malpractice or simply made mistakes? How many mechanics have screwed up people’s cars? How many accountants have embezzled from their clients? How many people with technical or business expertise, MBA’s, PHd’s and other degrees have screwed up their projects or their companies? How many of the so called experts have bled this economy dry with either their unethical practices or their inadequate and erroneously planned thinking?
A credential, is NO guarantee of ANYTHING other than someone’s ability to pass a test.
And for my money, I have encountered a number of MCC’s who I wouldn’t pay to coach me and a few ACC’s who I would hire to work with me on a team in an instant.
So what’s the point? The point is this…are we chasing something that is once again about doing it like everyone else does it in order to achieve something that could be attained a different way if we simply had the courage and creativity to abandon the safe and known and engage with the uncertain.
If you look at the notion of the credential as a marketing tool…please consider that outside of the countries in Europe, where it is critical to have…we currently require that someone have 100 hrs. of paid coaching contact, 750 hours and 2500 hours.
For anyone who became a PCC or MCC before the ACC level was created, this means you had to get 750 hours of business before being able to even apply. Do we really think that the credential is the key to business? If so, how do people get ALL those hours of business without them? Unless they had a raftload of friends who were willing to chip into their welfare or were just willing to lie, People have already demonstrated that business is a function of ‘in the moment’ credibilty, chemistry and a clear presentation of what’s possible in the coaching engagement.
I applied for and was tested in the first round of MCC testing after the grandfathering round. When I applied, I already had 4,000 hours of coaching business in individual and team coaching. I went straight for the MCC bypassing the PCC. After the live demonstration, when there was still an interview process to ‘get to know who it was who might be joining the MCC level’ I was asked …”Why should we give you an MCC?” and I thought for a minute and my response was clear…”Well, I’m not going to give up coaching if I don’t get one, nor will it prevent me from getting more business since I’ve already gotten 4,000 paid hours without it, so in essence, there’s no ‘good’ reason to do so other than I met the criteria AND more importantly that I will represent the profession in the public’s eye very well. Other than that, it’s just icing on the cake.”
Years later on, when we were revamping the MCC to establish more clarity in the differences of the three levels, I took the MCC oral test again with two people who didn’t know I was already MCC and did not know me. The purpose was to beta the new distinctions. Again, I passed.
There is no fear for me having to re-take an exam. There is no fear for me of having the MCC designation disappear and having it affect my business. There is no resistance to changing the assessment process to either be more rigorous, consistent or reliable.
My challenges with all of this are simply:
1. Are we using a coach approach as we entertain this question and others stepping into the future or are we simply seeking to conform to that which exists already?
2. Are we congruent with our stated philosophy and definition of coaching and is that exhibited in our every interaction at every level of the organization or are we simply following an outmoded, circle the wagons, command and control approach?
3. Are we truly international and taking into account the impact that occurs with different regional needs or are we simply Americentric once more as we have been in the past?
4. Lastly, and apropos of the moment’s conversation…. Is a credential TRULY needed and if so, what is its ideal form, structure, assessment and implementation?
Because if we can’t entertain the thought of not having one, then we are truly not open to new possiblities of replacing an old model with a new one.
“If no is not an option, then yes is not a choice.”
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 8 October 2009:
As there continue to be parallel discussions at Coaching Commons and on the LinkedIn ICF discussion group, I will post this in both places. Sorry for the duplication, for those who are reading both.
I’ve received the recent emails from Karen Tweedie and Ed Modell.
I’ve really appreciated the dialog both at Coaching Commons and on LinkedIn. I’ve also noticed, I believe, fewer responses to specific questions recently.
Could we please have some clarification about whether to expect interactive dialog going forward, or whether the ICF board is moving to a less interactive, “send us your questions and we’ll get back to you”, interaction style?
I ask this because there are a number of questions that are still outstanding and I am unclear about whether the lack of response means “we don’t know the answer”, “we don’t want to share the answer at this point”, “we are waiting for someone else to answer this”, etc. As in any relationship, it can be hard to interpret a lack of direct response and it can be easy to misinterpret the motivations behind the lack of direct answers.
Perhaps a clarification of the current communication strategy and a timeline beyond the December meeting would be helpful.
Thanks.
Jonathan
Comment by Linda Ballew on 8 October 2009:
You are correct, Rey. Out of the 906 posts on the Coaching Commons, this post has generated more comments(60)than any other in our 21 months of operation. Open dialogue about topics this critical to coaching is the reason the Coaching Commons was created. The conversations springing up at this roundtable will hopefully present many views and will result in the best decisions for coaching, coaches and coaching clients.
Comment by Ed Modell on 8 October 2009:
Roberta-
Here is the message that Karen Tweedie sent out to all ICF members and ICF credentialed coaches today:
The ICF Board of Directors sincerely regrets any confusion and concern that has resulted from our communication regarding work on the credentialing program that many member volunteers have been doing since 2007.
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. All we are learning in this input phase will be shared with you in further open conversations and provide additional opportunities for member input.
I sincerely appreciate how important and dear to many of our hearts this topic is. I want to reinforce to you now that what has been shared is a proposal—a concept idea that the Board needs to get your opinion on.
Our true intent is to engage in conversations with our members, credentialed coaches and other stakeholders, about what we’ve learned in the validation of the credentialing process so that we could truly enhance both the process and the credentials.
Over the past few weeks we have been engaged in conversations with various groups, including the ICF Past Presidents, and reviewed online feedback. We have already learned a great deal! In particular, your input has helped us see how our initial communications mixed two ideas together and created confusion.
One idea is to improve the process of credentialing to achieve more objectivity, consistency, fairness and capacity. The second idea was to look at the value of the three credentials and how they portray internationally recognized standards of excellence. Now that we see this, we commit to creating more clarity about these two different ideas in future communications.
Again, no final decision on how to enhance our credentialing program has been made. In December, the Board will meet and review the many comments, questions and ideas that coaches from around the world have shared with us. After this, we will share the collective learnings gathered and engage you in further dialogue.
I am sure you can appreciate the enormous complexity of the work we are doing here, and how inadequate one mode of communication alone is. Please join us in as many different ways as you can to contribute to our learning conversations.
There are many ways you can engage with us to share your comments and questions:
Open conversations via teleforum with members of the Board and Credentialing Committee; please visit the ICF Event Calendar for bridge line and dialing instructions;
E-mail isocomments@coachfederation.org;
Follow and share feedback on the ICF blog. With the suggestions and assistance from several of our members, our blog has launched to support our community conversation;
Attend a special meeting/lunch on the afternoon of Friday, December 4 at the 2009 ICF Annual International Conference in Orlando. I’ll be sharing more details with you on this shortly.
You may have also been following conversations around this work on other social networking sites, including the Coaching Commons site and LinkedIn. We certainly appreciate the work of coaches who have been taking the time to hold these important discussions. For more information, please click here to reference frequently asked questions and more details on Coachfederation.org.
I look forward to hearing from you on this important issue and working together to strengthen our credentialing program.
Warm Regards,
Karen Tweedie, PCC
2009 ICF President
Comment by Roberta Hill on 8 October 2009:
Thank you Sara for posting at my suggestion. This is another one of those great writings.
I was told by another MCC that “To round off (and hopefully complete) the discussions around the ICF and their plans, a recent message has been sent to all members. They are apologizing for confusion as well as insisting upon looking for input and suggestions.”
I have received nothing. Anyone know more?
Comment by Sara Arbel on 8 October 2009:
I truly believe that what we are facing now is a symptom of a greater challenge, and therefore, here are few questions I have been pondering with, for the past few days:
1. Does ICF strive for transparency and democracy? “Transparency is evidence of an organization’s moral health, even when the leaders resist it; it is inescapable – in our era – transparency is often a matter of survival”. Warren Bennis & James O’Toole.
2. Does ICF feed on the roots and legacy of its founders, visionaries who are invested in the profession? (Creating a collective knowledge base by honoring the owners of that knowledge). Or reinventing itself each year???
3. Do we (as members of ICF) follow common Goals and Vision? If yes what are they today and what are the objectives to reach them? Is each member recruited to the task??
4. Does my organization make sure that I address my resources to the highest quality of a coaching education?
5. Does the organization I belong to; promote equal opportunities for the global population to benefit from coaching services in spite of their financial or geographic challenges. (serving society)
6. Is ICF a non profit professional organization (like the bar association) or do we want it to become a GOOGLE (as one of the member of ethics committee stated proudly)?
7. Does the organization work on increasing the public’s understanding of the profession and the professionalism in the field, world wide?
8. Is the organization run by professional coaches that relate to challenges from a coaching perspective and carry the flag for us all?
9. Name 4 reasons that make you proud to be ICF members?
10. Who are we being when we promote our business as accredited ICF coaches?
Well, these are the questions for which I don’t have clear answers as yet. I hope that this initiative and the voice that is clearly sound mostly by the pioneers of the profession will not be dismissed with a statistic statement saying that “we expected resistance, and this is yet less quantity than expected. People resist change, etc”.
If we look at the numbers of the MCC’s, PCC’s on the list, we are looking at a huge qualitive volume of the professionals that are keeping the integrity and the science of the profession’s positioning in the marketplace world wide; there lies the power, in quality and not in quantity; it is not an organization of insurance or real-estate agents, where quantity creates purchase power for the benefit of the client. We as members of a global coaching organization; create value to the quality of lives and to the quality of business performance for our clients.
Sara Arbel, MCC – Tel – Aviv, Israel, October 7, 2009
Comment by Rey Carr on 6 October 2009:
It’s great to see all the responses here at the Coaching Commons. Linda B. might be able to insert whether this issue is the most discussed of any yet examined here.
I’d suggest that the ICF pursue a different direction; one that will be much more valuable to coaches, coaching, and the public.
Instead of working towards ISO certification for their credential(s) it would be more fruitful for the ICF to engage in discussions with all the other coaching associations to find a way to elevate standards within the coaching discipline.
This would be much more advantageous than pursuing an external validation by an organization that can hardly be considered either experienced or valued by those organizations associated with human to human interactions.
Although this is a direction that would be valued by members of all the different associations, it’s only realistic for an association where political control, power, branding, and dominance of the marketplace were not current motivations.
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 6 October 2009:
Micheal’s 7 points brought out interesting challenges as faced in assessment situations where they are not tangible and quantifiable.
Point #1: Is objectivity possible if every assessee is assessed based on a set of agreed criterias or indicators, for example: ‘numbers or no uncalled injections/interruptions that would severe the coaching relationship during the whole coaching conversation could constitute ‘lack of competence’ or ‘mastery’ (of course there will always be subjectivities – the goal is to increase objectivities to the highest extent. BTW, hardly anything is perfect)? What should be the goal for achievement in any assessment situation – 70%, 80%, 90%, 99% objectivity levels, which could be counted as acceptable?
Point #3: Could further cross-validation via test & retest; simulations; and similar procedures, methods & processes; supplementing the ‘tape’s assessment’ increase objectivity?
Point #4: The test of declarative knowledge, I believe form only part of the assessment framework. Procedural knowledge where an assessee demonstrates the coaching proper (with a pre-agreed coaching outcome & a pre-arranged coachee) should further assist the assessor to validate the assessee’s coaching skill levels. Finally, having ‘impromptu’ coaching demonstration of a ‘live’, unrehearsed, and moment-of-truth coaching session, where the assessee is assessed on ‘performance knowledge’ (the ability to response appropriate in any given coaching situation – content-wise, context-wise, and otherwise) may provide the validity, reliability and predictive test for coaching competence?
Point #7: As with everything intangible, there will always be elements of subjectivities in interpretations, assessments and the like. The key is perhaps in attempts to capture ‘evidences’ based on agreed criterias, indicators, or measurements that would ‘turn’ the intangibles/qualitative into more tangible/quantitative, so that they can be as objective as possible to assess or measure.
Will there ever be the perfect system for measuring intangibles that are subjected to ‘individualistic perceptual human interpretations’? I wonder?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Comment by Alix von Uhde on 6 October 2009:
I couldn’t agree more with Karen: “I suspect it may be time to overhaul the governance structure of the ICF such that unilateral decisions on major issues cannot be implemented without a member vote.”
This ISO/Credentialing Schema is only one symptom of sorely needed governance restructuring – the one that is showing up publically – finally.
And I agree wholeheartedly with Michael, “…it’s the framework of thinking that is the most distressing…”
Last year in discussion with Diane, I raised an issue that I believe is a major contributing factor to the current situation: the issue of social and market norms based on the work of Dan Ariely, behavioral economist at Duke University and dare I say an out-of-the-box thinker who actually does well designed research. Chapter 4 in his book Predictably Irrational titled, “The Cost of Social Norms: Why We Are Happy To Do Things, but Not When We Are Paid To Do Them“ is particularly relevant. ICF was built on social norms – we all did what we did because we believed in it. Since the current management company has been on board, there has been a mixing of social norms and market norms (e.g. the Board made the decision for the President to be paid, and the Assessors began to receive payment in the form of CCEUs) – a sure recipe for damaging relationships. I and several other Assessors (I honestly don’t remember who else was in agreement with me) raised the point in discussion when the issue of CCEU payment for assessing was talked about. Many raised the point when the Board decided to pay the President – all unheard or unheeded or both. Social norms and market norms both have a place but they do not mix. I believe that mix has caused significant damage to ICF, and my hope, though it is faint at this point, is that the damage is not irreparable.
There is clearly no evidence that any of this was even taken into consideration – the current governance structures have seemingly created an impenetrable wall around the Board so that 19th century thinking remains safe and secure in a 21st century world.
Comment by michael stratford on 6 October 2009:
7 thought groupings On the notion of any “objective” measuring process:
The notion that a credential based on objectivity with respect to coaching is ludicrous at best…
One… there is no such thing as pure objectivity, physics already pokes holes through that notion with ‘observer created reality’ wherein the act of observation itself and what it is designed to measure affects the outcome of that which is observed.
Two… the tests are made by humans and humans are subjective in their preferences regardless of claims of objectivity. The test by nature are inevitably subjective. Objectivity is a phantom. so let’s not pretend it can ever be achieved with respect to an interaction between two human beings observed by another, or the answers on a written test as composed by one human being and interpreted by another, while measuring yet a third. Remember, this is not technical data that is being measured, it’s a human interaction.
Three…Other than quantifying if someone can regurgitate the contents of didactic information, we are assessing whether or not in a live situation (the taped is also with a live person) a person can demonstrate efficacy of competency. Let’s admit that we are not measuring anything objectively but measuring only an interpretation of a purported guideline and we are all aware that one person’s definition of a word may not exactly match someone else’s.
Four …. comes the “case study” method wherein a person is supposed to be able to answer questions on a theoretical situation. THIS IS THE MOST ABSURD TEST POSSIBLE TO MEASURE. These are human beings we are coaching and as such the vagaries of tone, pitch, rhythm, energy, volume etc. ALL inform what one might or might not do in a given situation. There is also length of relationship involved, and time is a factor in the depth or degree of building the trust to ‘go deeper’ for some people…a first month client may not be willing to answer a question that the same client would after 3 months of engagement. It’s about rapport and while it can be to some degree instantaneous, it’s rarely full on at first go. It’s a dance of living interaction, not a theoretical “if the client says this then what do you do?” My answer….It depends. It is completely contingent on a HUGE range of variables, some of which were mentioned above.
Five…Coaching IS not nor can EVER be formulaic and to attempt to measure it in such a fashion is to diminish it to an equation wherein numbers define and add up. Human beings don’t add up except in theoretical volumes like the DSM “if symptom y appears then it means Z and approach/treatment Q is recommended.”
Six…Since there IS NO objectivity available IN the coaching interaction so the real question is how to effectively assess a level of competence while using a reliable subjective process. And therein lies the rub…Both ISO and Prometrix as options, are technical data oriented and content driven, wherein one can measure whether or not one knows A or B piece of information…but having data points about a client IS NOT coaching.
Seven…Coaching is living and fluid and if we can’t find a way to assess the level of effective fluidity in the interaction then perhaps even the notion of a “credential” is absurd in the first place and the whole discussion is moot.
Comment by michael stratford on 5 October 2009:
I’ve been watching from the sidelines as well as being a long time MCC and Assessor for the ICF…I personally don’t care if the MCC designation is taken away, I’m not attached to the label and as I stated on one of the calls with assessors, removing the Master Credential will not keep me from calling myself Master Coach if I so choose…however. What troubles me most, and what has troubled me from the beginning is that the very quest for legitimacy and a reliable credential, has been directed to be antithetical to our very philosophy of the ICF…that is, the inherent wisdom of the client and the endorsement of the unique methodology of the client’s path to success. No cookie cutter approach needed thank you, we have that in spades from consultants, success gurus, authors, therapists, counselors and everyone from OD practiioners to astrologers to academics.
What the critical difference between those other methodologies and coaching comes down to is this…using a discovery process to uncover and leverage the unique methodology of success toward the unique vision of that client and counting on the inherent wisdom within the client to inform the process and therefore generate congruent results.
Nowhere in there is the message…”you must become like someone else in order to succeed, be legitimate, viable, credible or even the more fearful and equally heinous…’defensible’.” Should we now become like every other organization in order to do so, and therefore behave in exactly the opposite of what we say we’re about?
This is about authenticity, integrity and congruence. The ISO part is simply a symptom of a more insidious disease…that of homogenization. We must now become like every other organization in the world through the prometrix process or through the ISO lens…I AM NOT A CLONE!!!….
And regardless of whether the ICF goes to 1 or 7 credentialling level, it’s the framework of thinking that is the most distressing…the framework that endorses ‘what has worked before’ as the lens through which to look….to that I say…in the U.S. at one point we delivered mail via pony express…should we still do so because it worked? At one point the medical profession believed in trepanning as a way to ‘relieve the demons in one’s head” Is that what we should do when having a headache??? Or should we rather have the courage to generate form and structure that has NEVER been seen before and like the innovator’s the profession once led with, INNOVATE our OWN METHODOLOGY CONGRUENT WITH OUR PHILOSOPHY AND SOURCED IN THE SAME WAY? If not, we might as well simply call ourselves CONSOACHES…because we will have gone the way of others who have made “experts” Gods.
Comment by Vikki G. Brock on 5 October 2009:
Hi Ed,
Thanks for the reply, and you are right – it is a matter of perspective. As I read what you posted from the FAQ, when I read “criteria for the new credential are fully established”, it tells me the decision to have a new credential is a done deal, and what is not decided is the actual transition plan. Did I miss something here?
FROM FAQs:
“What will the transition path look like?
Naturally the answer will be more specific after this comment period is complete and criteria for the new credential are fully established. For our most senior coaches, MCCs, it may be just a simple matter of requesting the new credential, or depending on final criteria, MCCs and PCCs may be asked for additional elements as part of the process of renewals. Again, as details become available, we will involve you in developing the final plan.”
Vikki Brock
Comment by Ton de Graaf ChBC™ on 5 October 2009:
We, coaches, are facilitators of change. We bring about change by utilizing our ‘tools of the trade’. And we know from our experience that it’s not always that easy to change. Not because, as many people think, people in general are reluctant to change, but because they are reluctant to lose. They don’t want to lose something of value without knowing what they’ll get back in return.
As I read these discussions it strikes me that many ICF coaches are afraid to lose their hard-earned credentials. Understandable of course, but only in the eyes of coaches. The majority of our clients could care less. They hardly know the difference between a coach, an advisor, a therapist, a counselor or mentor. Let alone the difference between a Life, Business or Sports coach.
Let me give you an example from another accrediting body.
Take a look at the European Coaching Institute (ECI). They provide six levels of accreditation for individual coaches. Each level of accreditation demonstrates the training and coaching experience one has as a coach, by showing the number of hours of coach specific training and a coaching log showing the number of hours of coaching experience that a coach has.
Their levels:
WECI: Accredited at Work Coach, 100 hrs training, 50 hrs coaching experience.
PECI: Accredited Practitioner Coach, 150 hrs training, 50 hrs coaching experience.
CECI: Accredited Corporate Coach, 300 hrs training, 750 hrs coaching experience.
SECI: Accredited Senior Coach, 300 hrs training, 750 hrs coaching experience.
MECI: Accredited Master Coach, 450 hrs training, 4000 hrs coaching experience.
FECI: Accredited Fellow Coach, 600 hrs training, 8000 hrs coaching experience.
The question arises, in my mind at least, what the real difference is between for instance a MECI and a FECI. What does it all mean? Is a FECI a better coach than a MECI? Does 150 hours more training and 4000 hours more experience mean that this is a better coach and offers a higher value for money? Should I not always go for the FECI when I have the choice? Or is a MECI more cost efficient? Does a FECI get me to my goals more quickly than a MECI? How come? Where is the proof?
What bothers me is the instrumental approach to certification. Almost anyone can become certified with enough hours under their belt- competence is not really a requirement.
No wonder our clients get confused. They are right when they ask themselves the question: “What’s in it for me?”. We, coaches, have to start thinking with our potential coachees in mind. It’s all about them. It’s never about the coach.
Another accrediting body has chosen a different path. The Worldwide Association of Business Coaches (WABC) has chosen to have an independent expert institution (the Professional Development Foundation in the UK)) to carry out the assessments. The focus is on the required level of competence of a professional business coach. The WABC believes in creating a learning process that enables candidates to demonstrate their expertise in business coaching as it relates to relevant and prior professional and academic knowledge, experience and positive client reports. In this way, those successful candidates who have shown they are fully conversant with the practice of business coaching and are willing to comply with applicable ethics and professional codes of conduct will be awarded.
This means clean hands for the WABC and a strong statement to the public.
ISO has no value in itself. In the past I have taken a construction company to a level where they received the ISO 9001 certification. All it means is that you have standardized your procedures; everybody gets the same treatment. It also means that you can get an ISO certification for the construction of stainless steel life jackets. They will all be produced in the same standardized way. And yes, they will probably look good on you too, but won’t do you much good when you fall off your boat.
Our clients are not interested in who got the best grades in coaching class, they want to know who is the best coach for them. They want to know if their coach has the competence to help them sort out their issues in a constructive, meaningful, results oriented and …… empowering manner.
Did anyone ask our clients what they think? Anyone? Anyone?
Well, I did. And the answers I got… you just read. I assume (and as a coach I hardly assume anything) that everybody in this profession is here with the best intentions. Let’s discuss this further with that, and our clients best interest, in mind.
Comment by Roberta Hill on 5 October 2009:
I finally received an email early this morning from John Annesley who fully supports the move to ISO as follows:
Hi Roberta
Thank you for contacting me regarding my position on credentialling and ISO.
I am fully supportive of the proposal to improve our current credentialling system by adopting ISO Standard 17024 as a means of providing a third party certified quality control process for our written exam. For me the use of such an ISO process provides the ICF’s examination process with a level of integrity that is beyond reproach across the various coaching credential issuing associations.
In regard to the other matters related to the total credentialling process currently being considered by the Board I believe :improvements to current credentialling system are required; the current Board proposals are one set of propositions for discussion/consideration by all members, and as a current Board member I, like all other Board members, welcome full discussion and open discussion of these issues.
Kind regards,
John Annesley PCC
Comment by Karen Wright on 5 October 2009:
To Philip’s comment:
I have had direct personal experience taking major organizations through ISO certification processes, and agree that my experience and understanding align with the “no grandfathering” policy within ISO. That said, my issue is less about whether, as an MCC, I would have to re-certify, and more about whether a credentialing standard that indicates mastery, or at least quantifies experience, would be eliminated. I am a strong believer, based on marketplace feedback over the last decade or so, that at least two tiers of credential standard are useful and relevant in helping the still-confused purchaser of coaching to understand who is likely to be skilled versus masterful.
To the issue of whether or not various aspects of the proposal are a “done deal” – I have perused every post on every group that is discussing the issue, and continue to find language that indicates two things cast in stone – that ISO has been chosen, and that there will be one credential moving forward. On that basis I fear that the ICF is about to commit a major offense – that of pretending to seek feedback when in fact the decisions have already been made. To that end, per a post I made earlier on the LinkedIn thread, I suspect it may be time to overhaul the governance structure of the ICF such that unilateral decisions on major issues cannot be implemented without a member vote.
Comment by Philip Cohen on 4 October 2009:
Two comments regarding the recent posts.
First …. Ed, you said one of the possibilities is that MCCs might be grandfathered into the new credential. I’ve had no connection with ISO, but I have a close friend that has taken several MAJOR corporations through the process. He tells me ISO doesn’t allow grandfathering. You say it’s possible, he says it isn’t. Only one of you can be right.
Second …. a little perspective. I served on the Board for 5 years. During that time I heard members talk about how insular the Board was, but I couldn’t see it. I KNEW we were having great discussions and being as thorough as we could. Then I got off the board and the flow of information was cut off. That’s when I understood what members were saying. One of the biggest concerns I’m hearing expressed in our current conversation is that same as I’ve heard for years. “How is the Board making their decisions? What are they using for knowledge? Have they thought the whole thing out?” For a profession that is so based on clean and clear communication, I don’t understand how communication can be getting in the way of this discussion.
Comment by Rey Carr on 4 October 2009:
Let’s face facts. The real reason to pursue ISO certification is a political one. The ICF wants to increase its ability to control and govern coaches.
Rather than providing any evidence that the drive towards standardization actually contributes value to the coach-client interaction, the ICF holds up the term “standardization” as if it was a banner from the Crusades behind which all the troops would cheer and rally without really questioning the basic premise.
I can’t imagine how any experienced coaches who currently earn the income they want from coaching could find anything of value in moving to ISO standards. I know from research that the majority of the public will not care as they are mostly concerned about experience not credentials when it comes time to choose a coach.
And I have a hard time imagining that the majority of the current members of the ICF will benefit from the ISO direction. There’s a reason why widget makers have embraced the ISO; and let’s be clear neither the coach, the client or the coach training organization are widgets.
Comment by Alix von Uhde on 4 October 2009:
I was just over at http://leadingcoachescenter.com/groups/be-a-voice/
There is a post by Giovanna D’Alessio: “We made a decision to be compliant with ISO (International Organization for Standardization). “
So that’s apparently a done deal. I somehow missed the 60-day comment period on that.
Comment by Karen Shue on 4 October 2009:
Ed:
This is interesting. I read the FAQ snippet you shared and thought exactly the opposite — all the possible “transition” pathways are toward/based on the new credentialing process and how the previous credential would be handled.
So what I understand from the FAQ is that this is expected to go ahead and there is still uncertainty about what happens to those with the old credentials.
Perhaps it suggests that even FAQs need be read by people not involved intimately in the discussions in order to verify what they are actually communicating.
Perhaps what it was intended to convey was that the Board fully intends to do Something to shift the credentialing process toward something more “objective”, time-effective, etc., but it’s not yet clear how or what that means for the previous system participants?
So, are you saying the ISO notion is one possible solution that has been fleshed out enough to “float” to the coaching community or…?
I’m really liking Billy Teoh’s questions about the underlying issues this change is intended to address and how it does that.
Comment by Fran Dutton on 4 October 2009:
How is it possible that all the ICF board members up for election can hold such similar short-sighted views of the long-term perspective on coaching? (Thanks to Roberta H. for bringing these views to light.)
It’s sad to see that potential board members are not willing to take a stand for the leadership of the ICF in determining what constitutes a valid credential. Don’t let the ISO make the decision. Leave the future of coaching to the members of the coaching arena. Future board members ought to be thinking about relationships with all the other coaching associations, not the barely related ISO.
Comment by Alix von Uhde on 4 October 2009:
Dear Pat and All,
First let me be very clear about one thing: I do not question the positive intentions of the Board nor any of its members nor that of the Credentialing Committee or its members. I submit to you that everyone always has positive intent. I believe it is essential to understand that positive intent has to do with perspective of the individual or group. I sincerely believe that whatever anyone does or says has a positive intention from his or her perspective. So the question becomes: What perspectives are informing that person’s or that group’s actions, and how may that perspective be enhanced or enriched? Individual Board members and the Board as a whole have perspectives as do long time Assessors, members of the Credentialing Committee, the membership at large, academicians and the public. The Assessors’ attempts to understand and gain insight into the perspective of the Board and the reasoning for the decisions that are being made have been thwarted for more than a year and a half. Our questions are not answered, or not answered in full, or answered one way today and another way tomorrow or with so much ambiguity that it further undermines trust. And I have no evidence to suggest that the Assessors’ attempts to clarify their perspective to the Board have borne fruit.
Thank you, Pat for providing more information than we have been able to glean up to this time. Although I sincerely appreciate that information, I do not find it a compelling argument when so much is at stake. You wrote, “We looked at several standards that are in place for the certification of persons.” I am curious about the “we”. Who exactly? Staff? If so, who exactly was involved? Credentialing Committee, you personally? A vetting Task Force? At such a critical time in the history of ICF, I believe it is important for the “we” to be replaced by names of real people – for individuals to take responsibility, for ambiguity to be replaced by clarity and personal responsibility. And how many is “several” and what exactly did “looked at” entail? And at the moment, as Vikki pointed out in her post, Members of the Board here and elsewhere on line continue to repeat that this is not a “done deal”, but at the same time talk about “transition”. If nothing is a done deal, pray tell, Board Members, what “transition” are you talking about? My point is that trust cannot begin to be rebuilt on a foundation of continued ambiguity or without clarity and personal responsibility. The grassroots movement, ICF Coaches Take A Stand http://www.icfcoachestakeastand.org
is modeling that personal responsibility and clarity.
In a long letter to Diane last year I outlined many situations that had already (and were continuing to) undermine trust; I also offered ideas on how to improve and begin to rebuild trust. I pointed out that trust is a major issue earlier this year in my feedback as an Ethics and Standards Committee member to both Diane and Karen in writing and in conversation. I have no evidence that any of that was heard or heeded. My experience as an Assessor (beginning with the transition to the current management company and steadily increasing through the present time), as an Assessor Trainer and as a member of the Ethics and Standards committee in 2008 has been disheartening to say the very least.
I would like to share something I wrote last year in our Ethics Committee List:
“Another point that concerns me as I think about our organization is that I (and others among us) have expressed the view that other members of the committee are “courageous” or “brave” when they have brought their concerns to us for consideration. That, together with the fact that within the last three weeks alone on two separate occasions ICF members have mentioned to me their concerns about the direction ICF is taking. When I encouraged them to express their concerns to the appropriate people and through appropriate channels within the ICF each of them said basically the same thing: I can’t afford to make waves until I have my MCC, because I’m dependent on them until that time. These points give me great pause when I think about the culture we are creating within the ICF. I believe it is essential for the health of our organization and profession that each member feels comfortable bringing his or her concerns, thoughts and ideas to the committee or the board or the staff without the need for courage, but rather with the confidence that his or her contribution for discussion will be valued.
James O’Toole, Daniels Distinguished Professor of Business Ethics at the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business, put it this way one of his most recent publications:
“Transparency, trust and speaking truth to power are complexly interrelated ethical and organizational concepts. To create cultures that manifest those characteristics, leaders must do several practical things: provide equal access to information to all, refrain from punishing those who constructively demonstrate imperial nakedness, refrain from rewarding spurious loyalty, and empower and reward principled contrarians.”
It is hopefully clear to all in the meantime, that providing “equal access to information to all” is not a practice that the ICF leadership has put in place. Nor is it being practiced in the “invitation” calls for MCCs, PCCs, ACCs, and others. The strategy employed there is more closely akin to a focus group marketing strategy than it is to a strategy to inform – and I mean inform on all sides.
Pat, you also wrote: “Your post also shared concern that the task forces were in some way directed or influenced to do their work in a way that supports one credential. This is simply not true.” No. What I wrote was: “Several of my colleagues were in the “Task Forces” charged with different aspects – from role delineation to item writing. And they were quite upset that their work and contribution was being used for something none of them thought even reasonable, and felt that that work was being misrepresented.” And that is true.
As to steps toward beginning to rebuild trust: I believe that addressing our concerns, as outlined in the ICF Coaches Take A Stand letter to the Board, in word and deed would be a first small step toward rebuilding trust, so that a meaningful conversation could take place. Speaking for myself, I believe that the Board must truly listen to our frustration before engaging in a conversation concerning the minutia of any “transition” in credentialing or assessment can be truly productive – not only “hear” us – this is not a matter of auditory acuity – but listen and then step up and take personal individual responsibility. I would need to see clear unambiguous communication coupled with inclusive circumspect action from the Board over a period of time. Further, it is my strong belief that ICF is sorely in need of some deep soul-searching relative to walking the talk when it comes to the core values of the organization, as well as very serious self-reflection and correction in order to create and implement robust transparent governance structures. It is an enormous task. I am curious to observe if and how each of the members of the Board chooses to deal with that task. The time for political speak, spin and ambiguity is past. It is time to replace political correctness and coach-speak with candor, respect, personal responsibility and integrity. It is time for each of us to take a stand – including those up for election to the Board.
Alix von Uhde M.Ed. MCC
Comment by Ed Modell on 4 October 2009:
Vikki-
Your question, “if nothing is a done deal, . . . then why is the board still talking about a transition plan?, makes me think how the coaching principle of perspectives applies to the present discussion. It appears that, for you, the mere mention of a transition plan supports your perspective that the proposed credentialing program is a done deal, whereas for me, having been at the Board meeting in July when the Board decided only to put the proposed credentialing program out for discussion and comment, the mention of a transition plan, without any details at all, simply means that the Board wanted all ICF members to know that we are thinking about the important issue of transition no matter what is changed, if anything, about the current credentialing program.
I guess your perspective is that the FAQs discussion of transition shows it’s a done deal and my perspective is that the same document shows it is absolutely not a done deal. Here is what the FAQs say about transition:
“What will the transition path look like?
Naturally the answer will be more specific after this comment period is complete and criteria for the new credential are fully established. For our most senior coaches, MCCs, it may be just a simple matter of requesting the new credential, or depending on final criteria, MCCs and PCCs may be asked for additional elements as part of the process of renewals. Again, as details become available, we will involve you in developing the final plan.”
I hope this is helpful.
Ed Modell, JD, PCC
Comment by Roberta Hill on 4 October 2009:
I received a personal email from Neil Scotton on Oct 2nd as follows:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Roberta,
And thank you for your enquiry on this important subject.
Where I stand on this issue is not a place of For or Against, but rather how do we ensure that we are an organisation where every member feels able to express their views on important matters such as these, and that they feel that such views are truly heard and embraced. The current debate shows that this is clearly not yet the case on this subject. My own knowledge and wisdom on a subject with as many considerations and implications as this one is not as great as the knowledge and wisdom of 18,000 members from around the world. My intention is not to take sides, but to play my part in helping to ensure that all sides are heard and respected in open, informed, inclusive discussions and a clear process we can have faith in. So that when decisions we can all feel that a proper process has been followed and a clear and fully justifiable decision has been reached.
I welcome the LinkIn debate that is underway, and the telecalls that are happening. I look forwards to more developments and a clear process that ensures that people can voice their opinions, hopes and fears, and that such debates are held from the point of view of reaching a decision that embraces all the wisdom we have available. I hope we do not mimic so many debates our political leaders have where positions are outlined early then sides try to destroy each other with no intention to hear what the other is saying.
I hope this answers your question. And I hope that any part I play in what unfolds helps you have the opportunity to fully share whatever thoughts you have on this subject and to hear those of others.
Because I have already have a role on the UK ICF board and in various ICF committees, may I make it clear that the opinions expressed above are mine, and not necessarily those of any other body.
With Best Wishes,
Neil
Comment by Roberta Hill on 4 October 2009:
I received an email from Cheryl Vermey with the following introduction:
As I received a number of emails on my position on the proposed ICF credential changes, I developed a general response. I am balancing a desire to be responsive to very legitimate inquires and also fulfill my current client obligations in a short period of time.
Attached is my response. I hope this answers your questions. This is an important issue and one that is critical to the future of the coaching profession. It is essential that all voices be heard on the questions before us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response to Questions Regarding the Proposed Changes to ICF Credentialing
Dr. Cheryl Vermey, CPCC, ACC, CTC
Because I have received a number of emails regarding the proposed changes to further evolving the ICF credentialing system, I have developed this statement to more efficiently respond in a timely manner. My thoughts are based on my over 35 years experience as a member of another profession as well as my academic education and experience in professional education, role delineation studies, and credentialing systems for professions. I am commenting only on the underlying concept and not the process and communication related to the issue.
Here are some key principles that guide my current thinking:
I view coaching as an emerging profession and not just another occupational group. Thus, there are certain public understandings of what constitutes a learned profession.
Credentials should both serve the members and protect the public with the assurance that the credential is tied to the assessment of a common knowledge base and adherence of a professional code of ethics.
I think that a profession, and in this case, coaching needs to have a common agreement and understanding of what background is needed to enter the training/education program (inputs) and what competencies are expected for successful completion (outputs). The result needs to be an education and credentialing system that is objective, reliable and easily understood by the public – and can be used globally.
An example I will use from the US is accounting. An individual obtains an education in accounting, in this example a degree. Then to be certified the person studies for and takes an exam and is certified as a CPA – Certified Public Accountant. This model is used for other professions such as medicine, nursing, social work and psychology.
Organizational change is a massive undertaking and starts with a draft proposal, developed by a core group of experts, with time for feedback and response. I respect that ICF has undertaken the huge task involved in the role delineation study that led to the current proposal.
I currently have the same information that has been provided the members and thus also have outstanding questions about both the change proposed and the impact for current credentialed members. In principle, I support a single credential for initial entry as a certified coach by the professional association (beyond what is awarded by a coach training program or institution of higher learning, either certificate or degree). I also support a further credential that recognizes mastery or an elite level of competency and/or coaching specialization that may be used by coaches in the marketplace. Changes in credentialing generally include a “grandfather” mechanism to protect the credentials of current professionals and I would support such a protective mechanism.
I encourage members to take advantage of the comment period that ICF has provided and remain open in the ensuing conversations that will take place. This is a complex issue and one with many nuances or shades of gray.
This is a great time to co-create coaching’s future and ensure our place in the community or recognized and learned professions.
If I am elected to the ICF Global Board of Directors I will remain open to the comments and questions of the members in the context of the guiding principles I have outlined above.
10/2/09
Comment by Roberta Hill on 4 October 2009:
Here is the response from Marilyn O’Hearne, who also has given permission for me to print it here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roberta,
As a current board member, all I can say is that we are listening, that your opinion counts and will be considered in our knowledge based approach to making decisions. We realize the communication that has gone out has been unclear and confusing, and we apologize.
I am not taking a public stand on the ISO credential or running on a stance as a platform, sorry if you were expecting that. Because we are in an open discussion time period, we do not have all data, as ideas that come out of this discussion time will be included as data to consider.
I can refer you back to my vision statement, posted on the website, I will quote from it below. As you have noted, I am running by petition for a 2nd term on the board because I feel called to continue my role as an interculturally trained and experienced coach servant leader who is also a visionary, independent thinker.
I can assure you that, as I wrote in my vision which is available when you sign in to vote, “I will continue to serve by using my intercultural training, experience, and perspective; independent thought, strong and gentle leadership, concise communication and creativity, my open heart and passion for coaching.
I embrace the 09 Conference challenge: What if every coach cared and dared to have an impact on the world? We will continue to build on our solid foundation as an organization and profession, while increasingly looking beyond ourselves to our impact on other systems. We will discover how to best develop, based on member and consumer input, and then create structure to support that development. ”
Warm regards,
Marilyn O’Hearne, MSW, MCC, LLC
Master Certified Coach, International Coach Federation
Executive & Life COACH, Trainer/Speaker, Writer
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 3 October 2009:
I’m wondering how many potential clients, corporate or personal, would see additional value in a certification that is ISO certified. Many corporations are familiar with other ISO certifications around manufacturing, but I don’t think that spills over into wanting an ISO certified coach. I think the marketing task of convincing consumers that an ISO certification for life coaches is important is even greater. Perhaps there is marketing research, even informal, that supports the value our clients see in ISO 17024?
My understanding is that ISO certifies that a credentialing process meets certain standards. From what I’ve read, it appears that the ISO certification doesn’t inherently imply any particular level of competence, only that the certification process respects the ISO standards. In theory, it appears to me that there could be an ISO certified coaching credential that would be below ACC. Is that a correct understanding? If so, it seems to me that the marketing task is potentially even greater – ICF would have to convince clients that ISO certification is meaningful and would still have to communicate what level of expertise the credential represents.
I’m wondering if anyone has a list of occupations that have adopted ISO 17024 based credentials. I haven’t found a list, but I’ve found a few examples:
- Project managers
- Ultrasound technicians
- Solar panel installers
- Human resource managers and consultants
If this were a test and I was asked what other professions to add to this list, coaching wouldn’t seem like a good fit. Perhaps there are more analogous fields using ISO 17024 that I haven’t found or perhaps we are in the vanguard?
I’m still not clear about what particular value this certification will add (and to whom) and am looking forward to hearing more about this.
So far, comments and questions seem to fall under
- Information gathering, consensus making, and decision making processes of the ICF (transparency and trust)
- Implications of the potential move to existing credentialed coaches, particularly if there is only one credential
- Validity of the data that was gathered
- Marketing value of the proposed change
- Question about whether the proposed change reduces bottlenecks in the current process and whether it increases the cost to become credentialed
If I’ve missed some topics, please feel free to point them out again.
And, once again to those advocates of the proposed change who are making the effort to engage in (I hope) constructive dialog.
Jonathan Sibley
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 3 October 2009:
What are the roots of this issue:
* ICF internal communication?
* Not fully encompassing universally accepted ‘components’ of what coaching should be, and just using the information from the ‘Role Delineation Study’?
* Inability to define levels of coaching knowledge, skills, ethics, behaviours, etc., appropriate for ACC, PCC and MCC levels (as an assessment practitioner, my personal belief is that a skilled assessor should be able to ‘capture’ assessment information & evidences that could differentiate between an ACC, PCC, and MCC – if we just define as a generic framework that applies to ACC, PCC and MCC, it just sends a message to the market that we lack role & professional clarity). Moreover, for example of a basic coaching skill – demonstration of listening skills captured at the ACC, PCC and MCC levels must definitely be ‘evidently skilled at distinct & differentiating levels, am I correct?
* Is the assessing process for ACC, PCC, MCC or the single credentialling the critical issue here?
* Is ISO 17024 really the real issue? Who benefits from ISO 17024, and who stands to be ‘disadvantaged’ because of ISO 17024?
* What other questions should we ask to get to the roots of this issue?
The above are some of the answers I would love to have more details and inputs so that I have a clearer picture, and hopefully would lead us to a fair and justified conclusion.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Comment by Francine Campone on 3 October 2009:
I am finding this an interesting and useful conversation and thank all contributors.
Two points stand out for me. One is Jonathan’s observation about the definition of the problem we’re trying to solve. Assessment of the assessment process speaks to a need to create a more efficient process.
The question of credibility opens up a larger issue for me. The term “body of knowledge” has been mentioned in several posts, with reference to the job/task survey. A code of ethics and list of presumed competencies, while essential protocols, do not constitute a body of knowledge for a field.
Coaching has historically had a strong skills/practice orientation. However, there is significant and growing body of peer-reviewed research which provides evidence and insight into specific aspects of coaching: for example studies of key aspects of the coach-client relationship and role taking;the applicability of specific coaching frameworks in certain contexts (e.g. the clients and situations most likely to respond to a behavioral approach and those most likely to benefit from an adult learning approach); strategies for valid measures of coaching outcomes; boundaries between coaching and similar human development practices; and standards of professional practice in related fields (e.g. psychotherapy, education).
While the job/task survey of coaches is one useful source, I believe we need to recognize the limitations of such self-assessments. The survey results should be triangulated with other sources- research literature and results of the multitude of surveys of client perceptions. The survey results should not stand alone as the sole source for determining required competencies and knowledge.
The problem we are trying to solve should be more clearly and fully defined and a researched body of knowledge should be identified. Then we have a solid basis for evaluating the proposed solution. This requires considerably more time.
Given the potentially significant impact of the proposed changes, it seems to me that the process should be given all the time required to solidify the ground on which coach credentialing will stand.
Comment by Roberta Hill on 3 October 2009:
On October 2nd, I sent an email to all candidates for the Board of Directors of ICF.
I asked this simple question:
Before I cast my ballot, I would be interested to know where each candidate stands on the issue of moving to a single accreditation as announced, regarding ICF Credentialing & ISO. Are you for or against?
Here is the response from the next candidate who wrote, Philip Brew. Philip wrote a nice email and has given permission for me to print it here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Roberta
I’m afraid that I’m neither for nor against at this point. I voted, along with the whole Board, to enter into a period of serious consultation with all ICF members to discuss and help shape a future credentialing system that will best serve our members, our clients and our profession. The evidence we’ve painstakingly gathered so far suggests that we can only justify one meaningful credential. This is a very challenging situation to discover and the Board is not rushing to any conclusions about how to move forward – hence the commitment to serious, extensive collaboration with our members.
You and I both hold the MCC credential and perhaps have similar concerns around this. I believe that the existing MCC credential can’t and won’t just disappear and the Board has reached no conclusions about such an action. However, right now the evidence is that we cannot yet adequately test for the distinctive level of coaching ability which the MCC is intended to represent. All the work by the different task forces came to the conclusion that we are not yet able to articulate either a distinctive body of knowledge or a distinctive competency framework for the MCC standard. A high level of client hours is not a sufficient basis for defining or defending the MCC as a separate credential. In my view this doesn’t mean that we must therefore abandon the MCC credential; to me it means that there is now a great deal of work to be done to more rigorously define what we sense (and believe we can observe) as true mastery in coaching. Our system of credentialing as a whole needs to become more rigorously objective, fair, defensible and sustainable, and right now we have more questions than answers about how to do this for the MCC credential.
Our clear single purpose is to strongly enhance the standing of our credential system – for coaches, for their clients and buyers of coaching and all other stakeholders in the profession. This will mean change, but the very last thing we want is to water down the credentials or the perceived value of them. I don’t think any of us yet know exactly what an enhanced system will look like. Certainly if we did move to a single credential then we could do so only through creating excellent answers to all the questions such a move would raise.
So I guess my best answer to your request is to say that I intend to remain open, listening and questioning deeply, rather than reacting. I don’t know yet what will emerge as the right direction, but I am committed to building a rigorous, meaningful and highly valued credential system and I intend to act for the good of the whole profession.
Thank you for asking me.
Philip
Comment by Roberta Hill on 3 October 2009:
On October 2nd, I sent an email to all candidates for the Board of Directors of ICF.
I asked this simple question:
Before I cast my ballot, I would be interested to know where each candidate stands on the issue of moving to a single accreditation as announced, regarding ICF Credentialing & ISO. Are you for or against?
To date, I have heard back from 5 of the 6 candidates and I must say that they are all sitting on the fence. This is the kind of ambiguity that I have come to expect from ICF. While I would have liked that the candidates were stronger in their positions, I also respect that this is new challenge for them. Therefore I have decided to endorse the 5 and give my vote even though they are not committed to one position at this time. My request has been that they take into consideration all who oppose this direction – including many members who have been active with ICF.
So that you may know where they stand on the issues, I am copying their position and reasoning here for you to review. I will do so in separate post for simplification. Some are more lengthy that others. I have notified them that I am doing so unless they wish to respond or clarify.
Damian Goldvarg, Ph.D., PCC was the first to respond and did so within the hour. His writing was of a more informal approach and he has expressed that he would prefer to do his own posting (perhaps) sometime in the future. I respect his views on this and have appreciated the exchanged that we had.
Comment by Philip Cohen on 2 October 2009:
Hi everyone,
Seems like the board has stirred up a hornet’s nest. I’m thrilled to see all the interaction here. I agree that an open discussion is necessary to getting clarity.
There’s a lot about this proposal and some of the actions of the Board that don’t make sense to me. Maybe I’m a little slow, or it may be that I see some things differently.
– We’ve always talked about the art and science of coaching. The written ISO approved exam will test the science part. What about the “art” part? Diane said there will be an oral exam before a candidate can take the written one. Will the oral test the “art”?
If yes, what grading scale will be used? What will be a “passing score”? How will it equate to the oral exam grading we use now?
– One of the reasons given for the change is because there needs to be less subjectivity in the exam. Since “art” is subjective, how will the subjectivity be removed from the oral exam? And how will assessors be trained so exam scores are more consistent?
– The Board says they support the continuing development of coach’s skills, yet they disconnected that path of development when they made the ACC renewable for life. By the way, that decision was made in January 2008, 6 months after the path to ISO was started. Was there any thought to what would happen to the existing credentials when ISO was pursued? If yes, why make the ACC renewable forever. If not, why not?
– The Board wants us to believe they want feedback. Then why do so many assessors feel they’ve been ignored on the assessor calls? Who knows more about the assessing process than the assessors? And they aren’t the only ones who have attempted to speak out.
– I was a founding member of ICF and served on the Board for 5 years, 4 of those as international treasurer. In March 2008 I dropped my ICF membership because of decisions made by the Board, including the one about the ACC.
– There is supposed to be an outreach to all stakeholders, including non-member credentialed coaches. Diane said non-members would be contacted by the end of this week at the latest. I’ve received nothing from ICF. I only know about this discussion because of friends in the community.
– Another reason for making a change is supposed to be because the process takes too long now. I agree. It’s unconscionable to make applicants wait 12-15 months for their exams. But I know at least a dozen great coaches who have offered to be join or re-join the assessor team. They either don’t get responses from attempts to reach the office or are told someone will get back to them, but no one does. So is this a system problem or an implementation problem?
Finally, whether we go to one credential or stay with three, how does ICF plan to educate the public about coaching and the credential? I’d like to see the outline of a marketing plan as part of this discussion.
Does something need to change? YES!! But as several others on this board have asked: Has the board done enough to look past symptoms to discover sources of problems? And has the exploration of solutions be thorough enough? I don’t know the answer, but the comments here and elsewhere say the communication has been insufficient.
Comment by Pat Mathews on 2 October 2009:
Dear Alix,
What I acknowledge first in your post is that you feel trust is broken. I am sad to hear that, especially given the many hours as a volunteer that you have generously given to the ICF and to the assessment process. I am also a bit confused as you and I have a different experience and therefore recall of the exchanges amongst the members who participate as Assessors and on the Credential & Program Accreditation Committee.
I wonder what will re-engage you in a dialogue so that we rebuild and restore trust and as a result, we can all benefit from your continued contribution?
I am concerned that without answering the question about trust, the content I offer below will be received as explanation and justification. My intent is to offer what I know as the facts so that the many who are reading may also gain some new information and choose to engage in our discussion. So with the risk noted, here is some additional contextual detail that may help our community exchange.
On the question of research I am aware from our discussions that examination of the research data was not satisfying and that you had and have a desire for very specific details of research methodology. I previously sent you information and also directed you and others to the ETS organization from which we received supportive, empirical data for our research efforts on individual assessment. It may be helpful for everyone to refer the ICF policy on research so we have a common language for our intent, focus and scope of research relative to our strategic initiatives. For a full discussion, here is a link to the policy on the web site
http://www.coachfederation.org/research-education/research/
And, the key definition is as follows:
A – Research:
Not all information about coaching can be categorized as research. Our working definition of research is:
- Research (including evaluation) is defined as any activity that involves the collection, collation, review or evaluation of data or information for the purpose of describing, maintaining or modifying activities, practices, interventions, or treatments.
- Research may involve the manipulation of variables or environmental factors whereas evaluation more typically involves the review of information for the purpose of providing feedback about the function, productivity or efficacy of an activity.
- Evaluation includes but is not limited to activities including needs assessments, process assessment, outcome studies, impact analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and meta-analysis.
I am confident that we have followed the policies of the organization and have done our due diligence to provide accurate information. I can appreciate that you disagree, and I will benefit from understanding what you see as an alternative pathway and how you see us incorporating that to our processes. We all benefit by ideas for improvement and if I have ever been rejecting of your ideas, I want you to hear it was not intended and your ideas are very welcome.
I notice that you are particularly concerned about the decision to adopt the ISO 17024 framework so I will offer the history here as a place to begin our shared context.
We looked at several standards that are in place for the certification of persons. Our focus was on standards for certification bodies that were general enough to be useful (i.e. not specific to a single industry/profession) while still providing useful guidance for the creation and operation of a credible program. We also wanted a standard that was globally recognized in acknowledgement of the global nature of ICF programs and membership.
A finer distinction that we made for our research is that we were most interested in a standard dealing with certification programs as opposed to a standard for assessment based certificate programs.
The National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) was considered and met most of the criteria. NCCA operates as a subset of the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA). However, while widely accepted NOCA is seen primarily as a US based organization and, following consultation directly with NOCA, we were directed to the ISO 17024 standard.
We reviewed the ISO 17024:2003 standard and found that it met our criteria of providing guidance for the operation of bodies that certify persons. ISO is known by other names throughout the world (e.g. in the US it is most often referred to as ANSI), but the 17024 standard was developed with global input using broadly accepted processes for development.
As we have shared in many calls, the ISO 17024 standard is really a short document that serves as a framework. While it is rigorous it allows for a variety of choices by the organization regarding the specifics of the schema for issuing credentials.
The issues that ISO 17024 tackles can be summarized as:
- Defining what it is we examine
- Examination must be independent
- Examination must be a valid test of competence
o Where competency is typically described as: the demonstrated ability to apply knowledge, skills and attributes
Your post also shared concern that the task forces were in some way directed or influenced to do their work in a way that supports one credential. This is simply not true. Our assigned task was to develop written test questions for each of the three credential levels that we agreed were a valid test of knowledge competence. The current credential system was the basis for the test specifications work and all questions were formulated with this specifically in mind. It was only after all the work was done, in consultation the test design experts from Prometric did it became clear that there was insufficient distinction in the knowledge base across the three levels to support the creation of an objective reliable exam at each level.
What is most important about that finding is that it opens the door for us as a coaching community to expand the body of knowledge beyond our current base in the code of ethics and core coaching competencies. That work will help us document the clear distinctions we experience at the different levels of behavioral skill competency that are reflected by the three credential levels in the current system.
Alix, I hope you will receive this response to your post in the spirit of collaboration and co-creation that it is offered. I also hope that we will enjoy the benefit of your contribution and partnership in restoring trust by joining the conversation and bringing your creative contribution to the discussion.
Regards,
Pat Mathews, MCC, Chair
Credentialing and Program Accreditation Committee
Comment by Carly Anderson on 2 October 2009:
Here are some more issues to consider:
Wouldn’t it be great to have our management company be made up of PCC and MCC coaches? We have so many talented PCCs and MCCs who have the skills, unlike the early days when we just had mavericks who didn’t want to deal with details, admin, finances, legalities…. But now we have those types of people with credentials. We could have people on staff who could actually be assessing applicants for a credential, as part of their job. There would be a strong coaching culture in our management company. Am I being naive to think this is possible now? Thoughts?
The data that came out of Assessors scoring a candidate and then staff tabulating those results showed there was a large range of responses, and some scored a candidate at ACC, when others scored at MCC level. I was thinking about that this morning. I’ve never had that happen in reality. I score PCC-MCC exams and I’ve never had my co-assessor have a completely different view of the candidate. We may be on the border between ACC to PCC, or PCC to MCC. Or we may have big differences between how we score an individual competency. I now wonder if the data is being misused because in reality, we never score a PCC-MCC exam on our own. It’s always with a colleague. ICF Assessors of PCC-MCC exams – have you ever had this sort of disparity happen in reality?
Engaging ICF Chapter Leaders globally. Wouldn’t it be great to have truly open discussions where the chapter leaders are not pushing a point of view. I have been invited to attend the next Board Meeting of my local chapter to talk about the issues that have arisen out of this debate. Wouldn’t it be great to have truly open discussions, open to all ICF members, at Chapter level? Where the chapter leaders weren’t pushing a point of view, and were able to accurately feed back via a transparent blog/forum, what their membership was feeling/thinking. I’d like to ensure there is at least one well-informed MCC, PCC or ICF member at each chapter discussion. Thoughts?
The whole issue about making a credential defensible. That seems to be one of the arguments for a one-credential system. Defensible against whom? The public? And in what country? A global legal standard? Impossible!!! May be the most real issue of defensibility is when a candidate is unhappy about not being awarded the credential they were applying for? If so, let’s make sure that candidates who don’t receive the credential they applied for are aware they can request a second set of assessors, who have no knowledge that they had not passed the first time. Make it a clear part of the exam process. Thoughts?
Carly Anderson, MCC
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 2 October 2009:
I have heard that one of the issues in the current credentialing process has been that there haven’t been enough assessors for oral exams and that this has led to relatively long wait times. Is this true?
If so, how does the proposed change address this issue? I can see how it might lead to greater consistency, if the ISO standard is as strong as some think it is. At the same time, what is the incentive for coaches to go through the expense of becoming a credentialed assessor (would there be training that someone would need to pay for?). Would assessors be paid to assess and, if so, what would the implication be for the cost of becoming credentialed?
Overall, is there a vision that could be shared about what the oral assessment pipeline would look like and how it would differ logistically from what is in place today in a way that would address bottlenecks in the process?
Jonathan Sibley
Comment by Fran Dutton on 2 October 2009:
I like Vikki’s idea: use the Coaching Commons for the discussion. Basically the ICF’s discussion model is to solicit feedback, have secret discussions among the executive, then issue a proclamation. Put an end to this fruitless and inauthentic method.
I’ve just read through all the points made here at the Coaching Commons and what is glaringly apparent to me is what is driving the need to get connected to the ISO? It seemed like there were 16,000 people (or whatever the accurate number of ICF members) who were relatively happy with the 3 credential system. Maybe there were some unhappy with the methods or procedures, but for the most part it seemed to be working well. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” seems to be the guiding principle that ought to be in place.
This drive to ISO makes one wonder why it is so strong in the light of so little evidence. There are reasons, and then there are the “real reasons.” Let’s hear about those.
Comment by Karen Shue on 2 October 2009:
I have been wondering why we can’t have an “ISO” credential that is the most rigorous (and appropriate for business and executive coaches) and a credential for those not able or willing to invest in this level of credentialing?
It would permit a coach to appeal to clientele that want and expect an “ISO” level of rigour (and who are likely familiar with the ISO), but it also provides a meaningful reassurance for individual clients who neither are looking for nor need nor want to pay for someone at the “ICO” level of credentialing (and who wouldn’t have a clear meaning for it anyway).
That could encourage people to join ICF, get a common credential for the field (ACC? PCC? maintain both?), and shoot for the “ICO version” of the MCC if needed/wanted.
Just some thoughts — this seems so “either-or” — can’t we do “both-and”?
Comment by Vikki G. Brock on 2 October 2009:
Hi Ed,
I have a question about what is meant by “transition” in recent posts. If no decision has been made, why are we talking about a transition? I ask that the board immediately halt any talk of a transition until the body of knowledge has been defined and the research has been conducted into what is the proposal that will best serve the ICF members and stakeholders (including clients and the public). It is only after the membership comments on and approves such a proposal that a transition plan can be discussed.
Further, if nothing is a done deal, as you posted on the LinkedIn and Coaching Commons discussions, then why is the board still talking about a transition plan?
On the second point, and to concur with Rey Carr’s post at the Coaching Commons, asynchronous communication through private emails and phone calls is not taking advantage of the open technology options we have available to us today.
For example, you suggest that people share their thoughts by sending an email to isocomments@coachfederation.org. This is private and one way communication – and can be perceived by some as a continuation of a divide and conquer strategy.
Bottom-line, I believe the ICF Board is well intentioned, and very misguided. My request is that the ICF Board agree to have this discussion in an open forum that is free for all to express their opinions. I suggest that the Coaching Commons (www.coachingcommons.org) be used as the primary platform for this discussion because no one has to join it – they just show up and comment.
I believe it is important for us to see and participate in the entire dialogue so we all are informed and can weigh in of the bigger picture. I am posting my thoughts presented here at the ICF LinkedIn, Yahoogroups, and Coaching Commons to begin the open dialogue.
There are several other larger issues to address which are in addition to the symptom (ISO credentialing proposal) we have been discussing.
• Transparency of the ICF Board
• Inclusion of ICF members in open dialogue about strategy and changes that affect the members
• Communication of full and objective information rather than what the ICF Board wants to share
• Continuous improvement of existing systems and processes
• Lack of alignment in the management company with the values and culture of the coaching field
As I said in my discussions with ICF Board members and member coaches, my trust is broken with the ICF Board and until some clear action is taken to stop this ICF ISO single credentialing process, take a step back, and truly include a two-dialogue – I will continue to take a stand for what I authentically and ethically believe is right.
At this time, I request that each individual ICF Board member communicate, through an open and public forum, their personal position on the ICF ISO single credential proposal.
Vikki Brock, Ph.D., EMBA, MCC
Comment by Alix von Uhde on 2 October 2009:
Rey,
I could not agree more with your first two points.
To your puzzlement: the ICF volunteer Assessors have been asking hard questions for over a year and a half – many, many questions. Two questions have been foremost among them 1) What other agencies, credentialing bodies were reviewed and vetted before deciding on ISO? What were the pros and cons? And what tipped the scales in favor of ISO? We have not been able to get an answer. 2) After repeated assurances that announced changes in the assessment process were all based on hard data, we asked over and over and over again: Where is the empirical data – good empirical data – from well designed research to support the specifics of what you are saying? Nothing has been forthcoming.
On September 15 there were two Assessor calls, in which we were informed that the ICF board had decided to go to one ISO credential – just like that. And no, there was no room to discuss the decision. We were asked for comments on how to implement the decision and to think of things they might have forgotten. Several of my colleagues were in the “Task Forces” charged with different aspects – from role delineation to item writing. And they were quite upset that their work and contribution was being used for something none of them thought even reasonable, and felt that that work was being misrepresented. Adding to that I can’t remember a single straightforward answer to any of the questions that were asked on September 15 – not even questions that would seemingly be quite simple to answer. For example, it was said on that call repeatedly that ICF needed a “legally defensible” credential. I asked very simply, “Legally defensible, where? In Kentucky? In Nevada?” The first response was sniggering. The next response was something about applicants wanting a “fair” assessment – to which I replied – that is something we all want – but “fair” and “legally defensible” are two different things – in essence “Apples and oranges.” And so it went.
Many of us have volunteered literally thousands of hours, because we were working for something we believed in – not that it was perfect, and in full awareness that the credentialing process could and needed to be improved. And I am not alone in saying that my trust had been broken.
Comment by Rey Carr on 2 October 2009:
Over the years I’ve had considerable experience providing feedback to the ICF. While I was a member I actively provided feedback. Now as a non-member I’ve provided the ICF with considerable feedback and comments along with specific, concrete ideas.
With the exception of two people, both former presidents of the ICF, my perception is that the ICF often talks about being open to feedback, but in reality typically ignores, defends against, or minimizes feedback, particularly when it represents an alternative viewpoint. The reception my comments or submissions to the ICF newsletter received while I was a member was one of the primary reasons I ended by membership in the ICF.
I know I’m not the only one with this perception, and that’s why I greet the requests to provide feedback to the ICF with some skepticism. Rather than continuing to make gestures of soliciting feeback, I’d feel more confident if the ICF would summarize their understanding of the feedback they’ve received to date. This might improve the communication process, just as it does in a coaching relationship where trust is essential for progress.
Comment by Ed Modell on 2 October 2009:
Just want to pass along a comment that I previously posted on the ICF LinkedIn discussion. I am on the ICF Board and we — the entire Board — are absolutely committed to a collaborative process to improve our credentialing system. The proposal sent out for comment is not a “done deal” by any means. The ICF Coaches Taking A Stand group’s letter has been received, read and heard and, personally, I doubt that any final action on credentialing changes will be made at the December Board meeting. I expect that there will be a constructive, open meeting at the Orlando conference to discuss the credentialing issue. I want to encourage anyone with additional, specific comments on the proposal to send them to isocomments@coachfederation.org, where they will be collected, coordinated and shared with the Board before the December Board meeting. I’m glad that so many people feel as passionately about our credentialing system as we on the Board do. I’m sure now, working together, we will get it right.
Ed Modell, JD, PCC
Comment by Rey Carr on 2 October 2009:
Two things stand out in this discussion so far. The more the ICF executive details their thinking about why they are considering the ISO model, the more they defend the quality of the three existing credentials. It’s as if the stronger their stand, the more evidence they give to keep things the way they are! What a paradox.
Second, the ICF again relies on data from a flawed survey: The Role Delineation Survey. This survey is rife with validity and reliability problems and the data collected from the 2,000+ respondents can easily be considered biased and unreliable, yet the ICF treats the data, as it does for all it’s other Internet-based, AS IF the survey was bias-free.
It’s also somewhat interesting to note that the ICF began providing information about their ISO intention in 2008, and I’m somewhat puzzled as to why the heat has suddenly been turned up on this wrong-way decision.
Comment by Vikki G. Brock on 1 October 2009:
Carl and Diane,
As an assesser since we began having assessors, I do not agree that many ACC’s pass at the PCC level or above (which to me means MCC).
It is my understanding that approximately 34% of the applicants for MCC actually are awarded the MCC, while 97% of those applying for the ACC receive it. Many coaches receiving the ACC credential have completed a 125 hour ICF accredited coach training program, which means they are coaching at the PCC level.
The ACC was originally meant as an entry level credential that would be valid for less than four years. It’s purpose was to allow people the time to pursue the PCC credential, usually this meant getting the 750 hours of coaching experience.
I do not know how many hours experience would be required for the new credential – I believe it is 500 hours, which is a lowering of the PCC standard (our foundational credential).
I do agree with the need for a consistent written exam to be taken and passed by all applicants for a credential, whether it is ACC, PCC, or MCC.
In conversation, Vikki Brock
Comment by Diane Brennan on 1 October 2009:
Thanks for your note Carl. It is always great to connect with you. We talked about a lot in a very short time. I have to give some clarification here as what I explained and how it was heard are not in alignment. This is a complex topic and as you can see real-time, it can easily be miscommunicated.
The current credentialing system tests for skill and knowledge. The proposed system would also do this. The distinctions between ACC, PCC and MCC are really around coaching skill. The knowledge required as we look at the results of the Role Delineation Study comes through as consistent whether the respondent held an ACC, PCC or MCC, was a non-credentialed member or was a non-member, basically affirming the ICF Core Competencies.
Currently ICF tests PCC and MCC applicants for the knowledge through a written exam. The test that’s been worked on over the past year using the ISO framework is a written exam to replace the current exam. If ICF moved to a single credential, all new applicants would take this written exam. In the proposal they would first qualify for taking this exam through demonstration of skill (actual observation of coaching). Currently, for example, an applicant can only apply for a PCC credential if they have met the requirements which includes at least 125 hours of coach specific education and 750 coaching hours. In response to Carl’s question on whether the bar would be set too high for ACC’s or new coaches to achieve, I believe we are seeing coaches much more prepared today than even 5 or 8 years ago. Our coach training programs are stronger and we have universities who have also started coaching programs. Looking at ACC exam data trends, many pass at or above the threshold for PCC. There are some who even approach MCC.
I want to be clear that our ACC, PCC and MCC’s have to meet high standards and go through a rigorous process to achieve their credentials. They are a signature of competence and skill as a coach.
Please keep your questions and thoughts flowing. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify questions, concerns or miscommunications.
Don’t shoot me if I’ve said something that causes concern – call me or email me.
Sincerely,
Diane
Comment by Carl Dierschow on 1 October 2009:
I made the observation to Diane that it appears that the ICF is shooting for a single, high quality, universal standard for Coaching. I’ll give them “universal” and “standard”, since that is a large part of the core purpose for the ICF’s existence. But I had questions about “single” and “high quality.”
Diane explained that the idea of the single credential is based on a robust set of data which shows that:
* At the core, either you’re practicing coaching or you’re not. There’s not a different KIND of coaching that PCCs do versus MCCs and ACCs.
* As a result, there’s no good way to test (written, observations, etc.) that a coach is of the ACC level versus MCC or PCC.
Sure, there’s a difference in the level of experience that coaches have, and in their specialization. But trying to reflect that via the credentialling mechanism is hard or even just kidding ourselves. So that’s where the idea is being floated to reflect experience and specialization in some OTHER way than through the credential itself.
The board would probably appreciate it if we could come up with a great way to do this. I don’t have a solution.
My other question was around “high quality.” Coaches shooting for the ACC might be scared that the “quality bar” is being set too high, while highly expert coaches might feel that the value of their credential is being watered down.
Diane told me that there’s solid data which shows that most people doing their tests for ACC are actually able to pass at the MCC level. So that’s the reason why they’re not overly worried about the ACC problem, although they still have to deal with the PERCEPTION that the bar might be set too high.
As for the highly expert coaches, that’s where we again have the idea to reflect this through a mechanism other than credentialling, which is the same thing I mentioned above.
I thank Diane for spending half an hour on the phone to help me work through the questions I had.
Comment by Carl Dierschow on 1 October 2009:
I just got off the phone with Diane Brennan, where we talked not only about the logic behind the proposal itself, but also how it was rolled out for comment.
The ICF Board is in a tough spot here. They know that broad engagement is critical for something like this, so they formed a number of committees of very qualified people who have been engaged in various parts of the process. They’ve been telling all the members for quite awhile that this was going on, but it’s hard to drag all 16,000 members through every step of the process. I don’t know about you, but I would have stopped reading the messages a long time ago if they had tried to do that.
And they couldn’t come to the membership with a half-baked proposal written on a Post-It note, we wouldn’t know what we’re commenting on. So they had to have something concrete, but when we see it, it sounds so concrete that it looks like the decision could have already been made.
It’s a no-win quandary, the same one I see played out in companies and politics every day.
I’m inclined to believe that, in fact, this is NOT a done deal, and that they truly are asking for comments from everyone. Which we should do in the most constructive way possible. In my next comment, I’ll talk about the reasoning behind the proposal.
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 1 October 2009:
ISO registration based on meeting the ISO clauses’ requirements for either the single or three-tiered credentialling systems (what would be the restraints for ICF to using the existing three-tiered credentialling system for ISO registration purpose? – not familiar with ISO 17024, although I am a qualified ISO QMS auditor) definitely would raise the ‘perceptual’ or real values of association with ICF; and my personal opinion is to pursue this track once the decision is made on which credentialling systems should be subjected to ISO registration process.
Addressing ICF members concerns and internal Organization communication about the ISO registration efforts, and what benefits it will bring to ICF members/ICF credentialled coaches, and how the ISO registration will impact them, may be critical steps before the final ICF Board decision is made. Had sufficient internal communication and clarifications been made?
What would be the ‘visionary outcomes’ to attaining ISO registration? If the ‘visionary outcomes’ have high probabilities for positive impact to ICF and the coaching profession, what implications and consequences would that have if ICF does not pursue the path to ISO registration?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Comment by Janet Harvey, MCC on 1 October 2009:
Good afternoon Jonathan and all the contributors and readers here,
As an ICF board member I will speak for myself and I do believe that I echo the feelings of other board members: the board’s committment to openness and engagement in this process is paramount – has been from the start and is not wavering a bit. Member engagement and conversation was and continues to be our primary objective.
It is clear that communication made available for the past year through the Coaching World ICF Monthly Newsletter and the ICF Web site are insufficient to build understanding about this strategic initiative. Nothing has been withheld. And, all members of the board agree that we must vastly improve the quality and clarity of communications.
There will be many more details emerging and I look forward to more coaches engaging in this forum. Thank you Jonathan for leading the way.
Janet Harvey, MCC
Comment by Rey Carr on 1 October 2009:
I’ve read through the comments, and I couldn’t find details about “grandfathering.” Here’s what I mean. I used to work for an organization that applied for, obtained and then rejected ISO compliance. One of the ISO requirements that was in place at that time was that none of their manufacturing procedures that did not comply with ISO requirements could be included (grandfathered-in) along with their newly updated manufacturing procedures. All their procedures had to be updated/revised/re-tooled, etc (unless, of course, the procedure already met or exceeded the ISO standard.)
What I’m getting at is this. Will this no-grandfathering idea apply to all existing ICF credentials? Will all current credential holders have to engage in taking tests or other procedures beyond what they have already had to do to achieve certification? Has the ICF specified in detail what this will be if this is the case? Such detail may assist current holders to decide about the value of this ISO transition.
Does anyone know the answer to this?
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 1 October 2009:
First, I’m curious about how the ICF Board is reacting to this process. I’m glad that Diane Brennan has engaged in the discussion and continues to ask for feedback. I wonder, though, whether there are some members of the board who are now thinking that having a more public discussion was a bad idea. My hope is that board members would be thinking “maybe we should have provided more feedback about what we were learning earlier in this process”, but I realize that may not be the case.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, I hope that this does not become a reason for the ICF to solicit less input, and to do more behind closed doors, in the future. The current dialog may slow down, or even derail, a plan that some may have become attached to. However, if the dialog leads to a better outcome, it will have been worthwhile. I hope that board members who support transparency will continue to do so and that, if other board members see less value in transparency, they can become convinced of its value.
Looking over the timeline of what has happened, I’m curious about why test questions were developed, once the Role delineation / job task survey was completed, before initiating the sort of dialog we are now seeing. I’m not familiar enough with the process to know. Was it important to have the meeting to create test questions to find out that there was not enough differentiation among the items? I ask, because it appears (although perhaps incorrectly) that the ICF is rather far into the process at this point, if draft test questions have already been created (almost a year ago, or is that incorrect?).
I’m not expecting to hear how the board is reacting, as I don’t feel that needs to be made public, but I do hope that the majority of the board feel that this dialog and greater transparency will, in the end, lead to a good solution that will benefit the ICF and all coaching stakeholders.
Comment by Vikki G. Brock on 1 October 2009:
I have been involved in a grass roots effort for the past two weeks to stop the move by the ICF Board of Directors to dissolve the three tiered credentialing system into a single credential. Over 80 strong (including past ICF presidents, every past ICF credentialing committee chair, ACTO coach training schools, and global representation from ACC, PCC, and MCC credentialed coaches) have spearheaded this effort that spontaneously emerged following ICF Assessors meetings where, once again, the concerns about this move went unheard.
Please visit the website http://www.icfcoachestakeastand.org and decide for yourself where you stand on this dissolution of the three tiered credentialing system. If you are in agreement, please sign the letter that will be sent to each member of the ICF Board of Directors. In less than 12 hours since the website went live, 158 coaches have signed this letter. You can also send your own email to them outlining your position.
We need everyone, whether a current credential holder or not, who is willing to join this effort to do so–because numbers count. This is our opportunity to Take a Stand for what we believe is best for the coaching field and each of us as ICF member coaches.
Comment by Patti Pettis on 30 September 2009:
Thanks, Janet, for sharing this. It sounds as though you are hearing support for this, which I therefore expect I will also hear as this progresses. I remain avidly interested in not only the decision and outcomes, but also on the process we will all walk through in order to get there.
Patti Pettis, MA, ACC
Comment by Janet Harvey, MCC on 30 September 2009:
Hi Patti,
I am a champion of the proposal and I am champion of the conversation we have the unique opportunity to engage in with each other here in the Coaching Commons, on calls sponsored by the ICF and in our local ICF chapters and anywhere coaches gather.
The comment period is designed to contribute to our knowledge base. It is hard to comment on concepts; even though much communication has been sent from ICF headquarters to all members over the past two years about this initiative the conversation has not engaged in the way we are now.
You asked “then why?, how?, when? and by what process?”. Those are the right questions and it is what every member is invited to comment about. The ICF board put forward a proposal with enough detail that coaches could consider these questions with the proposal as a starting point. The board opened the discussion with every single member as well as non-member coaches around the globe so we gather our collective best thinking to create the best credential possible.
We each have an amazing opportunity to shape the standard of excellence for every coach to strive towards and then build the systems and processes around that that will ensure objectivity, validity, and therefore credibility for the consumers of coaching anywhere in the world.
My question to you and each coach is what are the elements of the propopsal that you believe set a high standard of quality and excellence that inspires coaches to life long learning and professional development? What are the elements that communicate excellence, commitment and competence as a credentialed coach when a consumer of coaching understands it? And, what elements don’t fit or make sense and for those, what change will you suggest?
As the board liaison to the ICF Credential & Program Accreditation committee, I am hearing excellent suggestions for refinement from the extremely talented members of that committee who live all over the world and proudly represent the range of current credential, ACC, PCC and MCC. As an owner of an ACTP school, I am hearing excellent suggestions for refinement from the ACTO members. The proposal is that, a proposal from which to engage the discussion. Let’s keep expressing our good thinking and co-create the solution that serves the profession well into the future.
I look forward to hearing our “voices” be creative.
Janet Harvey, MCC
Partner & CEO inviteCHANGE
Comment by Suzi Pomerantz on 30 September 2009:
Another place to get in the conversation is at the Leading Coaches’ Center, where a lively conversation on this very topic is taking place:
http://leadingcoachescenter.com/groups/be-a-voice/
Comment by Patti Pettis on 30 September 2009:
There seem to be some rather strong feelings about this proposal. I am curious as to the process undertaken to get to this point.
Looking back at past communications about this, both here and on the ICF website, I glean that the board of directors has been considering this move, taken some definite exploratory steps with ISO, and is now asking the corpus of ICF members for reaction and feedback. May I ask more about how the board included groups of key stakeholders or representatives of the groups beyond the board before the mass communication?
Here is why: Thus far, I am not feeling a championing of this proposal from representatives of the larger corpus. I do, however, feel dissatisfaction coming from both seasoned coaches and the neophytes (myself included, as a new ACC). For the few posts that we read here, there are many more rumblings about the proposal out in the coaching community, and my personal experience thus far is that they are negative.
This causes me to ask whether we might want to slow down and build in additional steps in this evaluative process that is supported by more key stakeholders before rolling it out to the larger corpus as a proposed change.
As a new (and proud) coach certified by this organization, I want to feel that a final decision answers to the needs of the coaching profession in a way that allows its members to feel best supported. If indeed this is an excellent move, then why? How? When? And by what process? To short-change ourselves through a short-cut in process to evaluate right decision, right timing, right way, etc. is to invite a potentially unmanageable situation alienating those who have helped to build this organization and this profession thus far.
Comment by Diane Brennan on 29 September 2009:
In response to Jonathan’s questions:
Problem:
The ICF has engaged in an ongoing review and process improvement around the credentialing system over the years with assessor and applicant feedback, review of processes and trending of results. The Board’s action in June 2007 to move toward ISO 17024 compliance was a deliberate step to take the ICF credentialing process through an international assessment/benchmarking process. As ICF performed the Role Delineation Study, EMCC members were invited to participate. We did also talk with another organization but EMCC was the only one interested in engaging in the process. The goal for the ICF credentialing process:
•Globally recognized as being efficient, responsive, professional and able to support the growing demand.
•Operate in a manner that is fair to the applicants and legally defensible for the organization (includes assessors operating on behalf of the organization).
•Serves to protect the consumer as well as advance the profession. (Lets the consumer know the coach met the qualification and demonstrates competency relative to the ICF’s standards and competencies).
What ISO brings:
ISO 17024 provides a framework that ICF has used as a benchmark for current processes and to look toward the future. The questions, evaluation process, research and conversations with other credentialing bodies, and ongoing conversations with ICF subject matter experts which includes credentialed and non-credentialed members, Assessors, Credentialing Committee members and Coach Training Program Representatives, have allowed for learning that improves current processes and identifies the gaps or needs for the future.
Potential side effects:
I suspect you are asking for the emerging profession as a whole related to what research would say around standards and what it takes to become a profession. My comments are around ICF’s credential and our (Board’s) responsibility to ensure we have the best possible system in place for our members and ultimately the consumer.
Those who have been involved or current in the communications around the work over the last two years have an understanding of why this proposal has emerged over the last few weeks. I have been involved in the work and have seen the evolution to come to the proposal that was sent to ICF members. I understand the confusion and appreciate that communication can be clearer. The proposal is not something that could have been shared previously because it did not come into existence until the July Board meeting. Now is the first time that a full proposal is available for member conversation and discussion so that members help us to shape the future based upon the research of the past though to the July board meeting.
There is a lot of energy around the proposal and I’ll say again, we want the thoughts and feedback. If needed, I can be reached directly at coachdiane@gmail.com or phone +1-520-797-6645 (Pacific Time Zone).
Best regards,
Diane
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 29 September 2009:
It’s nice to see a robust dialog with respectful yet diverging opinions.
I wonder what evidence there is that having an ISO standard for coaching accreditation would add significantly more weight to any coaching credential in life or executive coaching. It strikes me as unlikely, but I know that I have no evidence supporting my hypothesis.
The fact that the differences among different levels of current certification were deemed insufficient to be carried forward suggests to me that a lot more work is needed to clarify the differences between junior and senior coaches. Should this work really be done after implementing a new credential, rather than beforehand? Isn’t this likely to create even more confusion in the marketplace?
Also, I’m not sure this has been made explicit in this dialog, but there are other coaching credentials in the marketplace, and the less attractive the ICF credential becomes, for whatever reasons, the greater the opportunity for other credentials to gain importance. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing for the marketplace, other than the risk of confusion among clients, but it would seem to run counter to my understanding of the ICF strategy. My hypothesis, perhaps incorrect, is that the ICF credential could be marginalized, rather than becoming a defacto standard, and that this is not the goal or the proposed changes.
Finally, to what degree does the new credentialing process address the problem of bottlenecks in the current credentialing process? Will the test only be written? If so, is a written test sufficient? If not, how does the new process address the current issue of finding enough examiners?
Great to hear everyone’s “voices”!
Comment by Billy C H Teoh on 29 September 2009:
Is ICF moving in the right direction to pursue ISO certification? My short answer is ‘YES’ and should be in ICF’s immediate future agenda.
Is the pursuit of ISO certification TIMELY? My personal short answer is ‘NO’ as there is no ‘validation study’ or ‘truly global consensus’ on the results of the ‘Role Delineation Study’; although, from an Organization point of view, that could be a great strategy.
Has ICF done well so far? My answer is ICF has already gained its brand strength. My only concern is that sustaining the ICF brand may be an area of immediate action. Am I reading this correctly with the recent development in ICF?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Comment by Rey Carr on 29 September 2009:
Sometimes a step backwards is a step in the right direction. The ICF’s current pursuit of ISO Certification is not just premature, but it is wrong for the organization and it is wrong for coaching. I’m worried that the ICF determination to move in this direction will be harmful to the development of coaching, will slow or stifle innovation in coaching, will alienate the public, and will further separate the ICF from the way coaching is effectively practiced by many thousands of credentialed and non-credentialed coaches.
Jonathan Sibley identifies at least three questions that the ICF should be able to fully answer prior to initiating any changes to its current credentialing system. Unfortunately the ICF responses so far in this forum fail to respond to any of his queries. Instead they demonstrate what has become part of the ICF brand: pretend to solicit feedback, but ignore or sidestep anything that might challenge the ICF’s direction. This seems to be true even when the challengers offer concrete alternatives, rather than just a critical opinion.
In discussing this ISO fetish with some other master certified coaches, one of them said that this pursuit was like jumping off a diving board into an empty pool. The analogy was apt in the sense that it will likely result in a tragic outcome.
I want to see the ICF increase its strength, not dilute its influence in the coaching world. The ICF does not have a suitable track record when it comes time to truly cooperating with the other coaching associations around the world. And this current strategy is an example of ignoring the strengths of the other organizations and using those strengths to develop a more evolved, enlightened, and empowered approach to credentialing.
Perhaps a story will illustrate this. A young boy and his dad were driving in the family car along narrow forested park road. They came across a large tree branch that had fallen across the road blocking them from further progress.
The boy said to his father, “Dad, I think I can move that branch.” As the young man was getting out of the car, his dad said, “Son, make sure you use all your strength.”
The boy grabbed the branch and pulled with all his might, but the branch didn’t budge. Tired and sweaty he returned to the car, and said, “Dad, I couldn’t move it.” His dad replied, “Well, son; give it another try, but this time make sure you use All Your Strength.”
The boy got out of the car with new determination and high hopes and again grabbed the branch. But no matter which way he tugged, he still couldn’t move it out of the way of their car.
He returned to the car feeling defeated and dejected that although he put all his muscle into it, the branch couldn’t be moved. He said to his dad, “Gee, dad, I couldn’t move that branch. I think I need your help to make any progress.”
His dad replied, “Son, now you’re using ALL YOUR STRENGTH.”
My advice to those in the ICF who wish to pursue ISO certification is to stop immediately. Pay more attention to those who have already questioned this direction. Establish authentic dialogue with other organizations also involved in credentialing coaches and credentialing other practitioners. Tune in to members who have rejected this direction. Use all your strength to contribute to a brighter future for coaching.
Comment by Diane Brennan on 28 September 2009:
To add to Janet’s post, related to the ICF proposal, we (ICF Board) are keenly interested and want the reactions and feedback. I expect as coaches we know this but I will state just in case: It is OK to not agree, to be concerned, to clarify or ask for additional information. Does anyone really think we expected all to be silent or agree?
We can disagree over communication and language, what one thinks should or could have been done differently or we can get to work. My request is that we get to work together.
ICF members should have received the meeting notices for October. If you have not, you can log into the ICF website and check the times and call in number. The calls are for members at this point. ICF credential holders who are non-members will be receiving the information on meetings in the next week. Anyone is welcome to comment. Also, please let ICF office know if you did not receive the email so they can check if your email is current or if there is a problem.
The Linked In group is under ‘Jobs’ tab on the ICF Linked In. Not sure how it moved there but I just found at this location.
Diane
Comment by Janet Harvey, MCC on 28 September 2009:
Thank you Jonathon for your framing of this conversation.
With more clarity we will better align on the purpose of the open comment period which is to be constructive and contributory to the process of creating a highly credible, international credential standard.
As an MCC, an owner of an ACTP school, a Global Board Member and Board Liaison to the Credentialing & Accreditation Committee, I have many perspectives from which to view this strategic initiative.
You suggested: – The problems in the current credentialing process that the ICF is trying to solve
** Subjectivity in oral exam process has led to some inconsistent ratings, negatively impacting reliability and validity.
—- Evidence: Study conducted last fall with all ICF Assessors who chose to participate revealed assessors rating the exact same coaching session and scoring the exam from ACC to MCC level.
** Capacity in terms of the number of sufficiently trained assessors at each of the 3 current credential levels and the diversity of language that our global membership deserves.
—- Evidence: Long wait periods to complete oral exams and in some cases, no resources available in first language of the applicant.
** Clarity and understanding by the public of the meaning of our credential system and the value of an ICF credential to the consumer.
—- Evidence: Despite the extreme hard work of members and the federation as a whole in the area of public relations and marketing, the PwC studies and the Branding Task Force research confirm that we are making progress however consumers do not have enough understanding let alone clarity about the value and benefit of working with a member who holds an ICF credential to use this as an important selection criteria.
You suggested: – The ways in which the proposed ISO process will solve those specific problems
*** Solutions:
[ISO 17024; is used by the Project Management Institute to award a global credential in 107 countries with 500,000 members]
1) Build a credential system that is ISO 17024 Compliant
– The ISO framework for professional credentialing offers a protocol for creating an objective, reliable and valid testing process. We followed that protocol every step of this strategic initiative and as Diane pointed out the results of the Role Delineation Study [2,000+ members contributed], we found out that the core coaching competencies and the code of ethics do accurately represent what coaches do and as such serve as the starting point for the profession’s body of knowledge.
2) Get help from experts in assessment; Prometric
– With more than 50 years experience in the field of assessment, including ISO 17024 compliance, we are fortunate to partner with this company. With process support from Prometric, teams of ICF members contributed to the next step in our process, the Written Exam Item Writing project. We now have a database of exam questions that follow the ISO protocol and satisfy the toughest litmus test of all; our member coaches. [See the ISO Kit on the ICF web site for full details of this project}. And, most important, the members realized that we do not have sufficient distinction among the core coaching competency behavioral skills to support 3 levels of examination. This finding is central to our discussion. At this time, our body of knowledge will support one, foundational credential
3) Leverage the ISO 17024 framework to address desired improvements in the assessment process.
– During the annual ACTO membership meeting in April of this year collaboration occurred during which the beginning of a Role Delineation Study for the job, Assessor, was conducted. ACTO has in turn picked up this work and is moving forward with great passion and focus to develop core competencies for the role Assessor and has offered to co-create training for those competencies. This is very exciting and a partnership that will benefit all who wish to have the distinction of being an ICF Assessor as well as addressing the objectivity, reliability and validity for members seeking a credential.
4) Propose a framework for one foundational credential that will be adopted worldwide as the standard for professional coach excellence that can be easily understood and valued by consumers of coaching.
– Over the past two years many conversations have occurred amongst ICF member coaches; some by survey, some by focus group, some by committee work, some by special project, some at conferences, etc. All of these conversations informed the work of the global board during our July meeting that Diane referenced because after all every board member is a coach and represents all members in our thinking and participation on the board.
– The proposal that all ICF members are invited to comment upon is the result of everyone’s best thinking who has chosen to be involved up to this point. And, because we are proposing to establish a new framework it is the right time for all members to engage and to augment the proposal so that it does indeed set a standard for excellence and allow for ISO 17024 compliance.
– Every element was considered and then reconsidered in combination always with the intention for creating a solution that met our clients’ best interest for excellence in coaching. The proposal is a starting point. It is our intention that the members will comment and augment the proposal for the board to consider at our December meeting.
- And, in my opinion, the creation of one foundational credential is also a starting point for the next evolution of the profession.
You suggested: – The potential “side effects” of the proposed solution
** I am excited about the potential for clarity and consistency.
- The proposal sets a high standard moving the foundational credential nearly to the MCC level in terms of coach specific training (180 versus 200 hours) and mentor coach hours (20 versus 10 hours).
- The proposal also clarifies coaching hours to be those acquired once a member has been trained to the core competencies. As my colleague Russ Long said during a Credential Committee meeting, we separate from ‘epiphany coaches’, allowing for ICF coaches consistently to be identified by their pursuit of disciplined professional development and a commitment to life long learning.
- One foundational credential that is ISO 17024 compliant is far easier for me to market to my executive leadership clients as it is a familiar standard, recognized around the world and valued for the commitment to quality and consistency. Stepping into the power of that will make marketing and credibility far easier to accomplish than our current system.
** I am excited about the potential for innovation.
- As I followed the threads of conversation from GCC activities last year and as I follow the conversations emerging about mentor coaching and supervision, I can already see us stretching to see the next landscape of coaching. When we are less concerned about our relative status one to another, our focus of attention goes more toward the impact our clients experience. There is so much more for us to study and tease out in terms of behavioral skills and methods. From one foundational credential that acknowledges the efficacy of the original core coaching competencies, we can begin the work of innovation in earnest. What a rich field of study for researchers, for practitioners, for educators and for consumers!
** I am excited about the potential for unity worldwide
- Choosing to pursue ISO 17024 compliance in our credentialing system is challenging every one of us to grow as no aspect of how our federation operates will be immune from the change. Powerful improvement on behalf of the members is the result, and, it opens the doorway for more collaboration with other coaching associations around the globe such as EMCC, IAC, GSAC and so many more.
- I do believe that we are better together.
** I see the potential for members to fulfill what they told us loud and clear through the Brand Development Task Force — find more ways for me to be involved and contribute
- I know as a member now for ten years that this is the first time I am experiencing an open invitation to comment and contribute and that’s very exciting and scary at the same time.
- The scary impulse is to critique. The exciting impulse is to ask myself how does this new approach improve upon the past. I am also asking the question, what will strengthen the proposal for the future. I am choosing to follow the exciting impulse.
- I look foward to the many scheduled calls which are designed to bring more and more voices into the conversation and to clarify what is misunderstood or misinterpreted by what has been published to the members to date. Rather than divide and conquer, this is an opportunity to create venues for effective conversation. As a Board member I am also hosting sessions with our local chapter membership as well as with the graduates and current participants in our coach training program. This quickens me to have an opportunity for some exchange with our coaching community; wow!
Thank you Jonathon, Vicki and Diane — and, I hope many more will jump in!
Cheers, Janet Harvey, MCC
CEO inviteCHANGE
Comment by Jonathan Sibley on 28 September 2009:
Perhaps we could take a step back and identify:
- The problems in the current credentialing process that the ICF is trying to solve
- The ways in which the proposed ISO process will solve those specific problems
- The potential “side effects” of the proposed solution
I wonder whether we agree on the problems, whether the proposed solution addresses the problems, and to what degree it might have unintended negative consequences.
I also am curious about other professions, how they address credentialing, why the differences exist, and how similar we are to other professions that are using the same ISO standard (e.g, project managers?).
I’m glad to see that there is some energy around this discussion.
Comment by Vikki G. Brock on 28 September 2009:
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for bringing this topic to the Coaching Commons.
As a volunteer ICF Assessor, former volunteer co-chair of the ICF Credentialing Committee, and ICF member number 60, I am very concerned about this decision to move to a single ISO credential. From my 20 years in business, to my knowledge ISO was intended for use with manufacturing processes, not people processes. I do agree that the currently credentialing process can be improved, especially the written examination, I do not agree that the changes as proposed are necessary or based on evidence.
Though Diane Brennan states in her comment that the decision has not been made to move to a single credential, an email from ICF President Karen Tweedie to an ICF member states: 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.
We were told on various Assessor calls that ISO will not support grandfathering – that everyone must take and pass the new oral and written exams. If this is the case, who will assess and grade the exams if there are no credentialed coaches? If a senior credential is determined to be necessary, then what is different from our current system is the elimination of the ACC credential. The ACC credential was established to allow coaches without the necessary hours experience to begin their path of development with an entry level credential that was valid for a period of three years while they were pursuing their PCC credential. Last year the ICF Board of Directors, without the support of the Credentialing Committee and with strong opposition voiced by the Assessors, removed the three years making this entry level credential valid forever, thus defeating the original intent of the ACC credential.
From my conversations with other concerned ICF members, the work described by Karen Tweedie as “validated by a comprehensive professional process” has not provided evidence nor research to support this change, has not identified a comprehensive body of knowledge (the body of knowledge identified included only the ICF Core Competencies and ICF Code of Ethics), and does not have the support of a number of those involved in the process. In fact, in discussion with ACTO members, past ICF committee chairs and presidents, and ICF assessors, I discovered that there appears to be a “divide and conquer” strategy by staff and the board. ICF members who question the proposed change have been told “everyone else supports the change”.
Also, the ICF LinkedIn conversation of this change (described by Diane Brennan in her comment) has been moved so it is difficult for members to find it and engage in the conversation. As for the scheduled calls with stakeholders, the only way to find the phone number is to log in to the ICF website to find it – my question is what is so secretive about the dial-in phone number that it could not be shared in the message sent by the ICF President to membership.
I agree with Diane wholeheartedly as she stated in her comment “I believe we have to think bigger and ask what is best for our clients and the evolving profession.”
From that perspective, and the perspective of at least 80 of my colleague coaches, I remain deeply concerned about the potential, if not likely implications of this recent ICF Board of Directors’ decision that would:
• Adversely impact the value and benefit of being an ICF member
• Jeopardize the competitive brand advantage in the marketplace that the ICF credentials currently offer
• Undermine ICF’s core membership values of integrity, excellence, collaboration and respect
• Hastily and improperly advance a major organizational decision that impacts all ICF members and lacks comprehensive research, credibly objective data, due diligence efforts, and the duly informed consent and support of the majority of ICF members
• Accelerate the continued alienation of many of ICF’s most senior, experienced and respected coaches
• Further complicate and confuse the business marketplace and coach-consumer with a new series of coaching credentials, thereby reversing the tireless and dedicated volunteer efforts made by ICF members over the past 14 years to establish industry-wide, globally recognized, credible coaching credentials.
This is an opportunity for the ICF Board of Directors to rethink their decision in light of the implications stated above. The Board represents and takes direction from the membership – not vice versa.
Vikki G. Brock
ICF Credentialing Co-Chair 2005-6
Comment by Diane Brennan on 27 September 2009:
Hi Jonathan,
I appreciate your raising the questions about credentialing. Because you begin specifically with ICF’s recent proposal for change to the ICF Credentialing Process, I’m going to provide some additional context.
ICF’s focus to enhance the current credentialing system began in June of 2007 when the ICF Board approved a resolution adopting in principle an approach toward a “Credentialing program that is objective, valid, reliable, and secure and will be a true and authentic measure of coaching competencies.” The Board chose to use the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards for bodies operating certification of persons (ISO 17025) as a framework to guide the process. ISO was chosen as opposed to for example the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) because ISO is related to International Standards.
ISO has served as a framework as ICF has enhanced current credentialing processes and looks toward the future. The first step in the process was to complete a Role Delineation Study which is also known as job analysis or survey that identifies essential knowledge and skills for the profession and serves as a blueprint for exam development. I will refer those interested in more details to the ICF’s August online issue of Coaching World at http://www.coachfederation.org where you can find an article I wrote “ICF continues credentialing enhancements: Progress made, and plans for the future”, outlining the process ICF has followed using the ISO framework and what was anticipated as next steps. I wrote the article in March of this year for a piece submitted to Choice Magazine for their June issue. The Choice article “Credentialing: Strengthening the global validity of professional coaching” was a much shorter version. Bottom line in the findings reported through the role delineation study by Prometric, the company contracted by ICF through this process:
• The tasks and knowledge were verified as important through the survey and provide the foundation of empirically derived information from which to develop test specifications for the ICF Credentialing examinations.
• Evidence was provided in this job analysis that the comprehensiveness of the content within the task and knowledge domains was adequately covered.
• A variety of professional development/continuing education needs and expected changes in job activities over the next few years were identified.
In July of this year at the ICF Board’s strategic planning session and board meeting, after much review and discussion, the board approved a proposal about changes to the current credentialing system. The purpose of approving the proposal was to bring this information to the ICF members and credential holders to get their feedback. The proposal has changes that are likely controversial to some. This is why ICF Board is bringing the information to the members to test, get reactions and feedback for the board to further review before final decision.
ICF is engaged in conversations with various stakeholders around the proposed changes and I can say first hand having been part of many of these meetings, we’re receiving thoughtful and constructive feedback that is allowing all to learn and expand thinking. For ICF members and credential holders, meetings will begin in October. You can find the days and times on the ICF Event Calendar on the ICF website. The other way people can comment is through the ICF Linked In conversations and by emailing any of the board members.
You ask what changes various stakeholders are likely to support. Change is a challenge, even when we are people who are experienced in assisting others in navigating change. It is important to be in the conversation.
I believe we have to think bigger and ask what is best for our clients and the evolving profession.
Thanks,
Diane Brennan
2008 ICF President