|
Bob Tschannen-Moran’s message on Twitter may have caught a coach or two by surprise: ”Will be hosting IAC gathering at the ICF Conference in Orlando Thursday night. Everyone welcome.”
Tschannen-Moran, president-elect of the International Association of Coaching, described his mission in Orlando this way: ”Several of us from the IAC, including Joan Marie Johnson, Kristi Arndt and myself will be attending the ICF Conference in Orlando. We will…use the occasion to appreciate what the IAC has to offer in the coaching world.”
So what does it mean for one coaching association to “appreciate what it has to offer” at another coaching group’s annual conference? Isn’t that something like talking up a Buick at the Ford dealer?
Not at all, says Angela Spaxman, the outgoing president of the IAC: ”I don’t think this could have happened a few years ago. The environment of the coaching industry is changing,” said Spaxman. ”We want to set aside our differences and work together for the good of the whole industry–the whole world in fact.”
Spaxman said the decision to attend the ICF conference grew out of the IAC’s overall strategy process. ”We asked our members what they wanted for the future of coaching in 5, 20 and 100 years. One of the themes that arose was that they want to see a lot more collaboration in coaching, especially between coaching organizations, and also between the fields that develop and use coaching,” said Spaxman. ”It makes sense that coaching organizations should be good at collaborating, so we decided to make a strong gesture by attending the ICF conference. I was also personally struck by one comment that one of our members made, that the IAC needs to ‘be bold’ and stand up for who we are and what we believe in.”
Spaxman and Tschannen-Moran say the IAC’s mission isn’t to compete with the ICF, but to ensure that coaches know as much as possible about both groups–including the different approaches to issues such as credentials and accreditation.
The IAC’s current strategy has emerged after years of change. A group that was originally free to join and supported by sponsors, has become member-funded, and its credentialing process has been perhaps the most distinct area of difference between the IAC and the ICF.
“We were born from dissatisfaction with the ICF which was convincingly expressed and acted upon by Thomas Leonard,” said Spaxman. “He believed that the ICF was too strongly focused on creating divisions between people through invalid and old-fashioned models of professional organizations. There is a lack of abundance-thinking when an organization strictly defines requirements for entry, excluding many who may be equally qualified, and supporting closely related profit-making schools that provide the hours of training required. This paradigm grates on many coaches. The simplicity of the IAC’s certification system is much more welcoming to people who want to benchmark and gain recognition for their coaching abilities without having to complete defined milestones that may not suit their particular development requirements. This is particularly true for mature coaches with years of relevant training and experience in related fields.”
Spaxman reports that the Orlando mission–and the group’s other efforts to spread the word about the IAC–is having an effect. ”It is very exciting to see a lot of new support coming our way now. In January we are expecting 8 or 9 new Board Members to join our team. As our strategy process comes to a close, we will be carefully formulating our plans for making the biggest positive impact we can in the coming years.”
IAC president-elect Bob Tschannen-Moran sits down with CoachReporter Mark Joyella to talk about his trip to Orlando and what it means for the future of coaching:
CoachReporter: The IAC at the ICF from Mark Joyella on Vimeo.
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There are 11 Responses so far...
Interesting article… until today I have never heard of the IAC…
Hi Mark – just wanted to say a big THANK YOU for not shying away from juxtaposing these two associations and their missions.
Personally, I’m still debating whether to pursue certification, especially after reading Thomas Leonard’s words when he said himself that happy clients really are the best proof for a coach’s qualifications. (Although granted, that’s debatable. Some clients may be inclined to approve after having paid good money, others will praise pro-bono work out of a cultural sense of obligation.)
The disconnect I’ve always seen is with the name, I guess. Certification implies to me that only after achieving it, I’ll be ready to do something. In this case, coaches receive their certification after hundreds of hours of work, which should be sufficient proof in and of itself that they know how to do their jobs.
Have a good one,
Dee
Mark –
Thanks for this piece – I found it very well produced for a 3 minute discussion starter. The previous comment indicates that you have already raised awareness of the existence of the IAC, one of the last contributions made by Thomas Leonard to the coaching community.
As Bob indicates in your interview, I believe there is room for both the ICF and the IAC, as they take equally valid, though different approaches to coach certification. Controversy around this issue, if I understand it correctly, stems from the highly emotional environment in which the IAC was established in 2003. As time has passed, the emotion has dissipated and now it is appropriate to look at the situation with a perspective of cooperation and abundance.
Many thanks to the ICF for engaging so openly with the IAC.
Warm regards,
Joan Johnson, IAC Board Member
As the ReciproCoach founder and leader, I have worked with three professional associations, the ICF, the AC (Association for Coaching) and the IAC. I am a member of the ICF, a wanna-be member of the AC and was just elected as a board member of the IAC. Recently, I also chanced upon APAC (Asia Pacific Alliance of Coaches).
Coaching professional associations are growing in numbers and each offers something different, yet they all represent the same industry. It would be nice to have collaboration between them in their representation of the same industry (to minimise confusion) and see them work for the greater good i.e. the advancement of the industry and coaches, rather than as competitors for members.
As I’m experienced in running a global community, it makes sense to combine resources – the more members, the more benefits for members.
Having said that, I remember in Australia when we only had one telephone company and then new companies were allowed in. It gave the consumer so much choice and made the original telephone company get on their toes and lose a bit of the complacency they had become notorious for. So in this regard, a little bit of healthy competition is also great for the consumer i.e. in this case, coaches!
A nice balance between collaboration and competition would serve us all well and it seems this recent endeavour is moving towards striking that balance.
Kerryn Griffiths
ReciproCoach >>> Where coaches go for coaching
http://www.ReciproCoach.com
Hello to all,
IAC’s step forward towards collaboration is not only a sign of the times, but a model for the industry. Yes, it takes courage to step forward and want to work towards a bigger vision of a flourishing industry. I am a proud member of IAC and ICF and ICCO. I look to these organizations for interesting exchanges,compelling visions and stimulating reflection. I have found what I have been looking for, each in their own context. As for the certification processes, they both have a strong researched foundation and complimentary approaches. By studying both processes and requirements, I learned even more about coaching than I had learned in the 3 years of study at an ICF- certified and a non-certified school.
Let’s look towards 2010 with hopes of coming together for fulfilling our passion – the potential to exceed our wildest dreams.
Happy Holidays,
Maureen
The concept of “co-opetition” has been around for more than 12 years (where competitors get together to ‘cooperate’ to capture a particular market or for the good of their respective industry or for a noble cause).
Does it makes sense for the coaching profession to do the same?
What could likely happen if ‘co-opetition’ among all or the major players in the coaching field get engaged in such a move?
Would that move evolve the profession forward?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
CO-OPETITION!
Love it Billy!
If we did it, I think we’d cover much more ground in a shorter amount of time.
Kerryn Griffiths
ReciproCoach >>> Where coaches go for coaching
http://www.ReciproCoach.com
In my view, the coaching industry is very fragmented, and because of this meaningful collaboration between coaching organizations is difficult. There are so many schools and organizations, all with their own unique interests and goals. For example, some are for-profit and others are non-profit. Some have a broad focus, others focus on an industry niche. Etcetera.
I don’t doubt Mr. Tschannen-Moran’s sincerity, but where was the “collaboration”? It was a nice gesture, but simply showing up at the ICF Conference was a “collaboration”? As he says himself in the video, they’re not going to join forces because of the difference in philosophy…so what else could the IAC board expect to accomplish for their members at the ICF Conference? From Mr. Tschannen-Moran’s comments, it seems like the IAC’s appearance was more of a marketing trip than anything else.
With respect,
Greg Howard
LiveAnew (www.myliveanew.com/coaches)
Although the tone of Mark’s story communicates a sense of “hot, breaking news,” as though something shocking was happening through the IAC’s presence at the ICF Conference, our experience was rather different. There was genuine hospitality and interest on the part of virtually everyone we met to not only learn more about the IAC but to explore ways that cooperation may grow in the future. There is a place for a credential-based certification (ICF); there is also a place for a competency-based certification (IAC). And the two can not only coexist; they can refer and cooperate with mutual respect and appreciation for what each other has to offer.
I can see the day when the IAC refers coaches to ICF-accredited training programs, among other ways to facilitate their journey into coaching competency. I can also see the day when the ICF refers coaches to the IAC for accreditation, if and when a coach chooses to not pursue all the requirements for ICF certification. Third-party validation of mastery and ethics is an essential part of any profession, and both the IAC and the ICF are playing that role in valuable ways when it comes to coaching.
The IAC has been one of coaching’s best-kept secrets. I’m glad more people are discovering us after 6 years. We expect exponential membership growth in the 2010-2011 time-frame, while I serve as President. And I appreciate this forum as one platform for talking about the future of coaching. Thanks, Mark! Thanks, Co@ching Commons! I look forward to staying connected.
What are the differences between a ‘credentialled-based’ and ‘competency-based’ certification?
Are we talking about ‘coaching technical skills’; ‘experienced-based skills’; ‘traits, personality & behavioural profiling that a coach should have’; ‘coaching knowledge whether declarative, procedural or performance-based’; ‘ethical inclinations’; what else?
Is there room for a ‘practised-based’ certification, where validation could be 360 degrees?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Marketing or rather, EDUCATION.
As the comment below reveals, most coaches don’t know that they have choice in professional associations.
The ICF was definitely collaborating to allow the IAC to attend the conference.
I have no doubt the IAC would reciprocate also.
When one is not afraid to let its members know about the other, then co-opetition succeeds. Healthy collaboration with a dash of competition to keep everyone on their toes
Kerryn Griffiths
ReciproCoach >>> Where coaches go for coaching