ICF Credentialing Process: Reactions to Proposed Changes?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.”

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

- 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.

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!

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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