Comments on: What’s Next for ICF Coaches Take a Stand?

By: Diana Levinton

Diana Levinton — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:48:51 +0000

Wouldn´t it be simpler to establish standards for coaching schools, some basics to be shared? In that way, there wouldn´t be any need for re-credentialling, paying fees again and all that jazz, and associations would serve the purpose of providing a meeting space for learning and sharing. No more struggles for power.

By: Ed Modell

Ed Modell — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:25:02 +0000

ICF President Giovanna D’Alessio has just posted a lengthy message concerning the Board’s recent discussions and decisions on enhancements to the ICF credentialing program. Here is the link to that message

http://icfheadquarters.blogspot.com/2010/01/message-concerning-icf-credential.html#more

We are interested in hearing your comments and questions.
Ed Modell, JD, PCC
ICF President-Elect

By: Judy Irving

Judy Irving — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:59:11 +0000

Hello everyone, I just attended a call with the ICF board for credentialed coaches. I may not have everything 100% correct, but the general gist of the call is this:

First the president acknowledged the membership and especially the ICF Coaches Take A Stand for putting the credentialing in a broad and systemic context of trust and leadership. At the board meeting, they had two areas to address: the purpose of the credentialing system and whose task it was to develop. They agreed the 3-fold purpose was to protect and serve the consumers of our services, measure and certify credentials, and inspire continuous development.

It was decided that the current 3-tier system of credentials will remain in place until January 2012. A credentialing committee will research and develop standards using the member feedback received over the previous few months. The initial work-plan will be submitted by this committee on March 18 at the next board meeting, knowing this plan will be preliminary. The recommendation of the committee at some point will go back to the members before being approved by the board. Lastly, a governance body (for credentialing) will be designed under the ICF umbrella, but administered independently of the board. (No mention of whether this also independent of the management company).

The ISO compliant idea will be revisited. They may use ISO standards as a guideline to develop our own where the current ISO is not applicable, such as in the oral exam. This is uncharted territory.

One new board member stated, the board wanted to operate in the spirit of collaboration, transparency and honesty.Giovanna, when asked about how the new plan might effect the ICF brand, stated they wanted to take the soul of ICF back and enlighten a higher purpose in the brand.

Giovanna will post to the ICF blog on January 28 a more complete response. This is based on my understanding of the call.

By: Alain Cardon

Alain Cardon — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:45:56 +0000

The fact that most of the debate on the issue is only in English really limits the feedback the board will get from it’s international constituency.
Do not forget that the ICF membership has truly become international and multilingual. The obvious way to make sure that the statistics stay low when refering to those who are against going ISO is to keep the whole debate strictly in English.
I am resident in a non-English speaking country. Elected ICF officials here are very clearly briefed to stand by the board and not by the ones who elected them. Some elected officials who have expressed their disapproval of the ISO move publicly have been told that they are out of line and should not publicize their opinion.
It is clearly the tail that is wagging the dog.

By: Diana Levinton

Diana Levinton — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:03:41 +0000

I agree with Josie McLean´s comment when she says “the bigger question that seems to be emerging from the conversation has only a periphieral relationship to the credentialling issue. It seems to have to do with whether the ICF is seen as a credible and trustworthy organisation”.
The same applies to other national, international and eventually “galactic” organizations. Marx (Groucho) once said that he wasn´t interested in belonging to any club that would accept him as a member…

By: Melinda

Melinda — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:06:05 +0000

Quote from Fran “Josie is correct in stating that the number of people giving feedback or commenting on this issue represent a minority of the membership, but it should also be stated that no other issue in the history of the ICF has generated as much commentary, including the ICF’s policy of stripping non-ICF certified members from voting. The fact that the total number responding is less than 10 percent of the membership is, in this case, irrelevant.”

I think you will also find that at no other time in history has it been possible for members to publicly state their opinions. The easy availability of social media, online platforms and instant communication enables many more people than ever before to be seen to be commenting. If these platforms were available 50 years ago then I believe you would have seen as much response as you are now seeing.

I think it is misleading to state that there has never been as much commentary as in this issue simply because it has never befor been possible to have this much commentary.

While I am still on the fence as to whether the move to one (ISO) credential is a step forward or not, I cannot see that having a recognised ISO could be anything but beneficial to the professional recognition of coaching.

By: Fran Dutton

Fran Dutton — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:28:45 +0000

So far the officers of the ICF have done little to improve confidence in their ability to handle the current certification controversy. I don’t hold much hope for the upcoming board meeting to actually meet the needs of the members.

The most telling point is the way ICF board members continue to “ask” for feedback and say how open they are to hearing from members and non-members. Yet not once, has any board member actually clearly summarized, expressed their understanding of, or detailed the meaning of the feedback they have received so far.

Sure the ICF published a document listing most if not all the original comments provided by contributors, but no board member has yet to issue an interpretation or assign meaning. Consequently how do we know that they’ve truly heard what the members have to say?

Josie is correct in stating that the number of people giving feedback or commenting on this issue represent a minority of the membership, but it should also be stated that no other issue in the history of the ICF has generated as much commentary, including the ICF’s policy of stripping non-ICF certified members from voting. The fact that the total number responding is less than 10 percent of the membership is, in this case, irrelevant. And while Josie is willing to accept the ICF membership number as stated on their website as 16,000, I’m personally skeptical that the number of fully-paid members is that high.

By: Jonathan Sibley

Jonathan Sibley — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:15:30 +0000

If one looks more closely at the numbers of those who have signed the petition, it includes a large number of former ICF presidents, board members, members of the credentialing committee, and assessors. I would argue that it is not just about numbers, but about who is advocating for what, and for what reasons. Many of those who signed the petition disagreed with both the end result of what had been proposed and the process that was used to reach that end result.

I think that there is a period of calm (and lack of responses) because there may be a perception that there isn’t that much to talk about until we see what happens during the upcoming board meeting. While some may be preparing to move on, I imagine that many are waiting to see what the board decides, and how it is communicated.

Perhaps along the lines of what Josie is suggesting, the ICF leadership could decide that they would rather focus on a solution that might serve the needs of a large number of new coaches, even if it meant potentially losing a smaller number of senior coaches. I don’t think that it has to be “either or”, but I realize that some might see it that way.

By: Josie McLean

Josie McLean — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:27:53 +0000

I am quoting a number from ICF itself that is true – and one impacted upon by my own poor memory for detail. But just looked it up on the website and my memory is an underestimate. http://www.coachfederation.org/about-icf/ reports approx 16,000 members in 90 countries. That makes Take a Stand with 800 people, a smallish portion (say approx 5%) of the overall membership base. That is not to say what they have to say is not important – it is -and should be listened to. I am just making an observation that the focus of attention has been on a smallish group in comparison to the larger whole.

I guess the bigger question that seems to be emerging from the conversation has only a periphieral relationship to the credentialling issue. It seems to have to do with whether the ICF is seen as a credible and trustworthy organisation.

Interesting.

By: Fran Dutton

Fran Dutton — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:00:54 +0000

Is anyone else skeptical about the “14,000″ that is currently being quoted as the ICF membership number? I’m wondering whether it isn’t considerably lower, but some creative person at the management company has figured out a way to spin it up.

And has anyone been to the ICF office in KY? It’s also the office of the International Spa Association (and others). You’d think for the fees charged and revenue generated the ICF would have a dedicated professional office. Maybe I misunderstood.