Which are the Core Competencies in Coaching?

You’ve raised some interesting questions, Leonardo. Of course, I do believe there is a large common demoninator between the IAC and ICF definitions of coaching, as well as with other coaching organizations worldwide. And I don’t believe the differences have ever been clearly defined.

I think the primary difference between the 3 models you show is their purpose. It seems to me that the ICF model is mainly used as a structure for coaching curriculum. The 15 Proficiencies (owned by Coachville) are superior for teaching coaching as their almost poetic quality helps people understand what is required in a deeper way than the other approaches. The IAC Coaching Masteries are designed primarily as a set of standards by which to measure coaching performance, in line with the IAC’s performance-based certification system.

But behind the differences in the structure and style of these models, are there major differences in what is actually deemed to be acceptable or masterful coaching?

The IAC has compared the results of assessing coaching recordings using the 15 Proficiencies and the IAC Coaching Masteries, and found very little difference. So these two models are actually describing the same thing.

It would be interesting to test some ICF-accredited coaching sessions under the same standards to find out if all of this coaching is actually the same. Wouldn’t that be a nice surprise?

From Angela Spaxman, President of the IAC

Dear Angela,

Thank you very much for your response. You give us a very interesting information.

I think we are facing two types of potential future research. One, analyze the “common denominator” between ICF and IAC (and others) from a theoretical point of view. And another, observe the differences between empirically demonstrated competencies for different certified coaches.

However, I believe it is a mistake to observe sessions (and compare it) without first identifying the theoretical frameworks (in this case the competencies, its purpose and justification). The point is, if we compare different sessions of certified coaches between ICF and IAC, and we see more similarities than differences, that does not necessarily indicate that there is a great “common denominator”, but the way we see (theoretical framework) to interpret that reality may be isn¬¨¬•t well (is wrong).

Therefore I see an intimate and indivisible relationship between competencies, the “common denominator” and the coaching definition. These feed each other. In short, depending on our definition of coaching, will lead a kind of “common denominator”, and a king of competencies (and vice versa).

Therefore I believe that empirical verification (sessions observation) is not enough, though useful. In natural sciences, observation may be necessary and sufficient, but in coaching the “previous theoretical framework” or our way of understanding the world and the reality alter the entire scheme of coaching.

What a great topic! In November 2004 I analyzed the similarities and differences between the IAC 15 proficiencies and the ICF 12 core competencies as an assignment for my Ph.D. program. Click here to view the paper.

In November 2005 Jeff Auerbach, founder College of Executive Coaching, conducted some research on competencies and presented it at the ICF Global Conference that year.

Several years ago Pauline Willis from the UK conducted detailed research on coaching competencies for her dissertation. I believe that her work has been incorporated into the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) competency framework.

I believe that there are several items to clarify before looking more closely into competencies. First is to agree on a definition of coaching that is broad enough to include all types and styles of coaching. Next is to define the word competency. From there, research into the competencies (or proficiencies) that exist for coaching would provide the foundation for follow-on analysis.

From Vikki G. Brock, Director History and Archives

Vikki I congratulate you again. These are the things that make Coaching Commons so special. Thank you very much for sharing this fantastic study.

Personally there is one aspect that I am “concerned”, and that you mention in the study. I quote:

“Looking at some fundamental beliefs inherent in the ICF Proficiencies Competencies and the IAC, there are some contradictions. For example, in early October, 2004, Dave Buck (owner of Coachville) published an article on the Myth that” the client has all the answers “, which is a core belief behind the ICF Competencies.

In fact, at least one ICF Credential coach training school teaches that “the client has the answers.” Dave stated the reality was “in most cases, the client hires the coach for their ability to provide specific knowledge, experience and timely counsel.” Dave’s point of view is that “the answer is somewhere.” If we start from the belief that energy and we are all connected, then the client does indeed have all the answers, and our role is to “reveal” or “facilitate” conscious awareness of those answers. If we look at the point of view that we are not connected, then the statement that the “answer is somewhere” is true – it may or may not be with the client or the coach. ”

It is undeniable that Dave is right. The knowledge is not always within the client. And isn¬¨¬•t always within the coach. Knowledge is by nature “dispersed” (found in each of the individuals), and hence partnerships (whatever) produce greater benefits for their members, because when you share this knowledge is when we grow as human being.

However, I believe that coaching should work only with that knowledge that the client owns, not with that is beyond him. The knowledge that is out of the client, in my view, should be worked by other professionals (consultants, advisors, psychologists, mentors, trainers, etc.). Otherwise, hire a coach would be transformed into a mixture of the above, and transformed the discipline into a “super-ego profession”, extremely arrogant, losing its more humane essence. We can not, the coaches, be professionally ALL disciplines at the same time. I do not believe in that kind of coaching.

And obviously, as you also said, depending on the concept of coaching that we have, we get different specific competencies/proficiencies. And I think that even today, CoachVille and ICF are, under this point of view, in opposite places (although I do not rule out signs of approach).

Much of my current concern is to detect these issues of vital importance for the future of coaching. I think that depending on how we understand and practice it, we will be building one profession or another (and we should not believe that the path to be taken is indistinct). I believe these issues can and should be resolved, researching, writing and sharing our views. And in this sense, …

… thank you again for the study that you shared with us. It is simply great.

THANKS!!!!

Hi Leonardo,

In regard to the ICF and Coachville being in opposite places, since I wrote the paper, Dave Buck has been awarded Accredited Coach Training Program (ACTP) status for his coaching program at Coachville. He and his team did a masterful job of blending both the proficiencies and competencies into one program. The graduates of this Coachville program have the benefit of being able to blend both competencies and proficiences.

Vikki Brock

Yes, you’re right.

Hi Leonardo (and Vikki, hi!)

I think this issue you raised about where the knowledge comes from in coaching is one of the most controversial and important issues for creating a common understanding of coaching.

Rather than completely disallowing ‘advice’, or allowing it without limitations, I believe we can seek a middle way.

Definitely the arrogance you point to is not helpful to coaching. Coaches do not know the answers for their clients, even if they think they do. But at the same time coaches can nurture their abilities to share helpfully in true support of the client. A coach who ‘holds back’ information cannot enter the flow of revealing or facilitating with the client. Isn’t this a primary learning path of coaches, to gain the sensitivity to know when and how to share information not for their own sake but for the other?

Vikki, that study is really interesting. I wonder how the IAC Coaching Masteries would fit into this picture? …wish we had had this information when we were creating them.

Cheers,
Angela

Hi Leonardo,

The Worldwide Association of Business Coaches has asked the Middlesex University and the Professional Development Foundation in the UK to research this very subject.
The result can be viewed here:

http://www.wabccoaches.com/includes/popups/definition_and_competencies.html

Hope this adds to the discussion.

Angela,

First I must say that I do not understand that my conception and practice of coaching is the only possible (I recognize that coaching is in a maturing process, in which these issues will be defined gradually). Simply, I do not believe in the practice of “coach/adviser” as an alternative discipline to consultancy, advice, etc. (for me it’s like to pretend to believe that the existence of the “warm snow” is possible, that is a contradiction in terms)

I’m not sure this is a matter of “balance” (“seek a middle way”) from coaching and counseling. Accept the advice (at any level), involves planting the seeds of destruction of the essence of coaching. Why? As you say, “Is not this a primary path of learning, for coaches to gain the sensitivity to know when and how to share information, not for their own sake but for the other?” Well, I think the problem is not the coach’s ability to know when and how to share information, but to do so (although moderately) alters the process of coaching.

From my point of view, there is only one type of information that the coach can share: I am referring to information or knowledge of the coaching process itself (but not their content).

There are several points have been discussed in relation to this issue. For example, many coaches complain about the “intrusiveness” in coaching, when in reality, if we accept the “coach/adviser,” we are the “intruders”.

Dear Ton,

Thanks for the link. I didn´t know that specific study of WABC. After having read once (quickly), I can say that:

(1) In relation to the definition of coaching business: I think it´s OK. Recognize the importance of human action (individual and group) and its direct relationship with the business objective. Moreover, accepting the current evolution of the concept/definition of business coaching . The professional business experience and knowledge I seem elementary to engage in constructive talks.

(2) In relation to the competencies: the subdivision also seems to me very appropriate: (A) Self-management – knowing oneself and self-Mastery; (B) Core coaching skill-base, and (C) Business coaching and leadership capabilities . The three express, as a whole, the basic of coaching and the particular business coaching (and I have not seen, for the time, any contradiction in regard to what we have been discussing here).

I understand that we can include many more ideas, but I will wait to see where it is interesting to follow the discussion.

Thank you,

Leonardo Ravier

Hi Angela,

I wish I had the bandwidth to re-do the study to see the alignment with the “new” IAC Coaching Masteries. If there is someone out there who is interested in this, I can get you all the detailed tables that support the analysis I did. Contact me at coach@vikkibrock.com if you are interested. Angela, I will keep you in the loop.

Vikki Brock

I spoke with someone involved in the management of a university-based coaching program and he told me that some of the university-based programs have created their own versions of coaching competencies, due to concerns about how some of the existing competencies were worded and overlaps among some competencies.

For better or worse (I imagine some might take one side or the other), there is now a fresh set of eyes that are more used to using a scientific and research based lens when constructing things like lists of competencies. I think it will be interesting to see what this adds to the mix. I imagine it might look something like short-term confusion and annoyance (perhaps even defensiveness) followed by longer-term clarity and calm…

Anyone familiar with any of the work being done by these institutions?

Hi Jonathan!,

It´s a pleasure to see you around here.
I do not know about any university that have created their own coaching competencies. But I would like to know, at least (if it´s possible and you know it) which are those universities. Maybe they have published them and we could access to their results (although we don´t know about the process used).

Hi Leonardo,

I believe the list of participating institutions is here: http://www.gsaec.org/institutional_members.html

I believe that I heard that the schools might be trying to coordinate their sets of competencies and that the work isn’t published yet, but I could be wrong on either or both counts.

Is there anyone following Coaching Commons from the GSAEC who might wish to comment?

Thank you very much!

I didn´t konw this initiative (GSAEC), and I find it very interesting.

By what I see in “Guidelines for Graduate Academic Programs in Executive Coaching” (http://www.gsaec.org/curriculum.html), in general, I think they are on the track. For example, they defined 5 elementary coaching areas: 1) Theory & Knowledge; 2) Business Acumen; 3) Coaching Skills; 4) The Coaching Process; 5) Professional Practice.

In “Coaching Skills” (point that interests us), they defined the following competencies:

A) Assessment of Skills / conceptualization
1) Selection and design of type of intervention
2) Appropriate referral
3) Assessment
4) Observation

Interviewing

B) Skills of interaction
1) Feedback
2) Listening
3) Questioning
4) Action planning
5) Constructive confrontation
6) Challenging
7) Negotiating
Contracting
9) Influencing
10) Encouragements / support

C) Skills of facilitation
1) Visualization
2) Guiding action and reflection

D) Skills of education and change management:
1) Behavior modeling
2) Behavior modification
3) Reinforcement
4) Conflict management

E) Skills of utilization: of self, of the coaching relationship
1) Rapport building
2) Self-awareness

I have not had time to analyze it, but it is obvious that by accepting this structure, the competencies of a business/executive coach requiring a “plus” that allow adaptation to the business context. I keep seeing a lot to discuss, but I would like to see if there are more opinions, suggestions or comments.

Hi Everyone –

First, I should introduce myself as the President of the Graduate School Alliance for Executive Coaching (GSAEC); second, I must thank Linda Ballew for directing me here so that I might respond to your question.

Since the formal incorporation of GSAEC in 2006, the organization has been engaged in formulating guidelines for graduate schools offering programs in executive and organizational coaching. The original guidelines were drafted by all the founding members, and we are currently in the process of refining the document for publication in early 2009. As an academically based group, we view executive coaching as an emerging discipline and have thereby included in our model emphases on theory as a necessary underpinning for any executive coaching framework and on research methodology as a vehicle to contribute to the field.

All information about our organization can be found at the website Jonathan cited (www.gsaec.org), and I invite anyone interested to visit it or to contact me or any of our members.

My best to all–

Thanks Ruth,

Will the document be at public access?

It seems that the same approach at the IAC and ICF is also happening between WABC and GSAEC. The way both understand the coaching business is very similar.

Perhaps an important conclusion, at this point, is that virtually all organizations that are studying the issue of coaching competencies/skills, recognize that coaching (1) is still an emerging discipline; (2) requires more theoretical and empirical research, and (3) that dialogue is necessary to continue building and basing the profession.

The humility seems to be a common denominator (at least among these organizations). This is a good sign.

Leonardo Ravier
http:/www.leoravier.com

Leonardo,

Can you contact me as regards a potential collaboration centred around my new coaching product, The Team-Cards. You can view more information at http://www.performance-am.com/cards.html I believe we can easily translate them into Spanish.

Yours Aye,

Allan

allan@allanmackintosh.com

Ok. I´ll contact you.
Thanks.

LR

Thank you Leonardo for introducing me to this dialogue. The Global Coaching Community is currently reactivating their workgroups to progress the work started at the Dublin 2008 GCC convention. Contributing to this is GCC Symposium to be held in Oxford UK on 9 and 10 July 2009. One of the topics will relate to competences and will include researching what is currently available worldwide. If you want to engage in this development work visit http://www.thecoachvine.com and access the GCC Oxford Symposium Group.
Thank you all for this interesting exchange and comparisons of competence identification.
Best from Lise
Lise Lewis
Member of the GCC steering group