Self-Regulation of Coaching – What is your perspective?

Ed, I’ll take you up on your suggestion to start a new thread about regulation of coaching.

Over the years, it’s my impression that there has been a strong effort to make sure that coaching remains self-regulated and does not become regulated by other bodies or governmental agencies. I raised the question in another thread about how this might play into the choice of credentialing process.

I’d like to suggest that we continue the discussion about the credentialing process in the original thread, but that, as best we can, we explore the rationale behind self-regulation and the potential pros and cons of other forms of regulation.

I imagine there will be differences, at the very least, depending on where one practices.

In the US, if regulation occurred at the state level, a coach might have to become licensed in every state where the coaches clients are located. This is the case for social workers, psychologists, lawyers and, no doubt, other professions. It’s probably safe to guess that most coaches would find that quite troublesome. Perhaps someone who has been on the regulatory committee knows what models of regulation might allow for coaching across state boundaries. There is also the question, in some cases, of working across country boundaries.

As far as I know, management consultants and trainers aren’t regulated and aren’t credentialed. In what ways does what we do as coaches make the issues of regulation and credentialing more significant to us than to those professions?

In what ways, if any, might greater regulation of coaching be helpful for our profession?

I’ve expressed a number of assumptions in what I’ve written above, so in addition to voicing your positions, feel free to correct any incorrect assumptions.

Let the dialog continue!

Jonathan