ICF Credentialing Process: Reactions to Proposed Changes?

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.”

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.

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

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

Amen to such wisdom

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Hi Jonathan,

The professional association I am most familiar with is the Project Management Institute.

Kind regards,

Karen

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.