|
Was it a turning point, or wasn’t it?
When members of the Board of the International Coach Federation walked into a packed ballroom at the ICF’s annual convention in Orlando, FL, last December, some saw great symbolism in the “high noon” timing. It seemed some kind of face-to-face duel was in the making—a climactic confrontation after months of hot debate on the question of doing away with the group’s longstanding three-tiered credentialing system.
And yet, for Giovanna D’Alessio, the ICF president who was on stage that day as the group’s then president-elect, the luncheon meeting was a lot less dramatic than advertised. “Orlando was…(a) very interesting opportunity to hear voices in person,” said D’Alessio. “It gave us very good information about how complex this issue is and how it is best tackled.”
The luncheon, which received extensive attention and standing-room-only attendance was followed by the Board’s move to hold off on making any immediate changes—a decision announced formally in a letter posted to the ICF’s blog on January 27: “The decision of the Board is to keep the existing 3-tier credentialing system in place until January 2012 and to charge the Credentialing and Program Accreditation Committee to develop standards that will enhance our credentialing program to best protect and serve consumers of coaching services, measure and certify competence of individuals and inspire pursuit of continuous development.” But D’Alessio says now that the “Listen and Learn” lunch in Florida wasn’t the momentous turning point it may have seemed.
“I think we started to become more aware of the complexity of things in October,” she said. “Something shifted slowly but immeasurably.”
The realization that more work needed to be done—both in approaching any change in credentialing, but also in addressing underlying questions about communication and leadership—had become clear in feedback reaching the Board in October and November. “The Orlando conference was the conclusion point, but it was pretty evident during the ten calls we had and all the emails we received…and different discussions on the blogs,” said D’Alessio.
Magdalena Mook, the ICF’s Assistant Executive Director, described the lunch as added justification for slowing down and thinking through a reasoned course of action, but not the deciding factor. “The conference luncheon was not some kind of catalyst for what’s going on right now,” said Mook. “It brought to our attention and to the attention of everybody in that room that opinions were very diverse.”
Respecting the diversity of opinion, concerns about credentials, and questions about leadership, have led the ICF to chart a far more detailed and methodic approach to what happens next—a process that will soon involve the direct participation of ICF members.
On March 18, the ICF Board approved plans for a “credentialing work plan” that will involve four work groups, “and the first ones will be launched in April,” said D’Alessio.
The four work groups will tackle critical questions for the future of the ICF, including the credentialing system; governance of the credentialing system; enhancing and improving the existing system; and assessing improvements in the way the ICF currently operates.
In each case, members of the ICF Board will work with members from the ICF membership at large—at least 50 volunteers who respond to a request for participation that will be sent, most likely this week. The four work groups will have a set amount of time to answer questions about the future of the group, and the present. “While we work on enhancement, we still need to make our current system better,” said D’Alessio.
One enhancement that will be enacted is the creation of a task force on coaching knowledge and research, to be enacted in April.
This group, D’Alessio says, is in direct response to a suggestion made by the group ICF Coaches Take a Stand, which included a request in its letter to the ICF for: “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.”
D’Alessio says she hopes to have members of ICFCTAS, along with members of ACTO, GSAEC and other bodies fully represented in the conversation over the future of ICF and its credentials.
One thing that won’t happen, she says, is any distancing of the ICF from the credentials is has issued and continues to issue. “We have heard some doubts about our willingness to continue marketing and promoting the three levels of credentials,” said D’Alessio. “To us, our credentialing system is so important and so strategic, no matter what we do in the future, we will keep on promoting and marketing it and explaining the difference between the levels, and members should not worry. Go for your credential as soon as possible—it will just get better over time.”
“It’s a continuous enhancement process.”
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There is 1 Response so far...
In any credentialling system or for ICF in this case, the fundamental question to be answered with clarity or at least with general consensus is: “What is the agreed definition of coaching?”
Once that is grounded, the coaching knowledge, competencies, and skill/performance benchmarks for coaches can be more concretely establish?
I would think that validity, reliability and consistency in assessments of coach’s credentialling at each appropriate level, would determine whether ICF’s or other credentialling bodies will be generally recognized as the preferred credential for the coaching profession.
Will we see an enhanced and improved credentialling system? What auditing procedures, processes, and systems are in placed to strengthen, validate, and ensure quality standards of the ‘new’ ICF credentialling system?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.