The second in our new series of columns by an anonymous coaching buyer takes a thought-provoking helicopter view of what’s going on in the industry.

This issue: accreditation 

The recent growth in coaching accreditation is confusing. Not just for coaches but for those of us involved in coaching procurement In the unregulated marketplace, the challenge has always been to sort the wheat from the chaff. Until recently if you weren’t prepared to pay for an assessment centre, word of mouth tended to be the main way of checking whether a coach was any good. So if nothing else, a coach who goes through an accreditation process is demonstrating a commitment and professionalism.

Yet for those of us buying coaching, questions remain about the current direction of the accreditation field. The number of accreditation processes, with their multiple criteria and levels of proficiency, do not make it easy to differentiate between qualified coaches. How do I, as a procurer, know that an APECS coach is better than an ICF, EMCC or AC coach?; or, for that matter, any other comparison? I don’t know of any research which shows that one accreditation process is better than another.

As someone who has been involved in assessment I often ask myself, is a coach who can pass accreditation processes a good coach, or just someone who is good at passing accreditation processes?

While industry bodies are increasingly talking to each other, and the recent joint subscription to a common ethical code is welcome (see News, Coaching at Work, vol 3, issue 2), the diversity of industry accreditation is actually weakening the overall value. Until a common set of standards emerges across the industry, not just in one country but internationally, accreditation may be an indicator of potential, but procurers still need to establish if a coach can work in the context of a particular organisation.

With many of the coaching accreditation processes focusing on generic skills I also have a question over who is doing the coaching. The industry has surely to consider the credentials of those doing the assessment, which at present seems to be done predominantly by other coaches. Leaving aside the obvious question of conflict of interests (from a competitor, in the role of assessor, getting access to your intellectual property), I’m still not clear how assessors are recruited. Is it on the basis of their coaching experience or their assessment capability? You don’t need to be able to coach to be an effective assessor. Again, these questions conspire to raise concerns about the validity and reliability of the various processes.

At the moment coaching accreditation is a positive step forward for the industry, but it does remain confusing for those doing the procurement. Until there is a more common approach to accreditation and the training and management of those who do the assessment, many organisations will use it as just one of several filters to differentiate between coaches.

And if coaching bodies do not take steps in the medium to long term to consolidate, the use of assessment centres, demonstrated last year by the NHS Institute, will continue to grow. As the old saying goes: seeing is believing.

This column was inspired by the title of the book, A View from the Balcony: Leadership Challenges in Systems of Care by G de Carolis,

  • M Linsky (foreword) and R Heifetz (foreword), Brown Books, 2005.
  • Heifetz urges leaders to move back and forth between the operational field and the balcony view to get a better perspective (see also R Heifetz and R Neustadt, Leadership Without East Answers, Harvard University Press, 1994.)

Let us know what you think at: thefacelessclient@coaching-at-work.com