Coaching body leaders, coaching buyers and sponsors had a fruitful dialogue on accreditation at a landmark meeting led by Coaching at Work. Here’s what they had to say
The participants
(Chair: Liz Hall, editor, Coaching at Work)
The sponsors
- GlaxoSmithKline: Sally Bonneywell
- PricewaterhouseCoopers: Dee Cullen
- CMS Cameron McKenna: Jenni Emery
- (formerly of the BBC): Liz Macann
- NHS: Sue Mortlock
- Ernst & Young: Ian Paterson
- KPMG: Louise Buckle
The bodies
- Association for Coaching UK: Declan Woods
- Association for Professional Executive Coaching and Supervision: Jeremy Ridge
- British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy Coaching: Barry White
- Coaching Bodies Round Table: Mike Hurley
- European Mentoring and Coaching Council UK: John Leary-Joyce
- International Coach Federation: Joy Harcup
The British Psychological Society Special Group in Coaching Psychology’s representative could not attend
The dialogue
- I don’t think employers always care what accreditation stands for (body representative)
- It’s one of the things you tick off with supervision etc, then you look at the CV (employer)
- We’ve all interviewed people with the right accreditation, but then they’re no good
- How do the bodies go down the hierarchy in accreditation – manager as coach, for example?
- There are too many bodies with too little space and it’s not helping me define coaching to the CEO
- Employers don’t care. As coaches, we’ve had training to ramp up who we are, but for whose benefit? Our ego?
- There is some protection. We need some barriers to entry. We’re hearing from too many that there’s confusion
- Criteria for what purpose? For the general public? Not sure that to provide that protection, we need to be hammering away to such an extent to be a profession. We get confused that we’re more like therapy, but we’re more like consulting. Who are we protecting?
- People are looking for business experience. There is a difference between what the bodies are doing and what employers need
- We are increasingly asked for accreditation and it reassures from a risk perspective
- I equate accreditation with membership of a professional body and it gives me some reassurance such as (them signing up to) a code of ethics
- There is one university where you get accredited, but they don’t see you coaching
- This university is misusing the term ‘accreditation’ and there is a distinction between executive and life coach
- In our organisation, they have to be in supervision, be accredited, have underpinning theories, etc, and we observe them coaching in practice
- Do we have consensus around accreditation that we do employ coaches who aren’t accredited? (Yes)
- If they aren’t up to standard, you have comeback – it saves you a lot of trouble
- I know people who don’t want to go to a body or go through accreditation
- There is a sense that we’re not helping buyers decide which one is best
- It’s more about being fit for purpose. Different bodies do different things
- There is a tendency to say we are the best and do everything
- It’s quite significant why the bodies use the term ‘professional’. Why are we wanting to use this word?
- There are definite standards involved in other professions
- We need to be united
- Or we need a common enemy
- We risk so much being so fragmented
- Anyone can use the word (professional); it goes into common usage
- Yes, which is why we need a standard or profession. We give people a five-day programme and call them coaches and they do good work, but we want to be able to say, if you want a professional coach, accredited, of calibre, with standards (here is one) – what would be helpful is if we had (something like) – if you want psychologically based coaching, go here… (etc)
- Lots of people are doing good work. Sometimes a profession is distinguished by what it can’t do. Profession versus professional
- Employers want fitness to practise
- A professional knows when not to overcook what they think/say they can do
- It’s about emotional capability. Lots of courses have none
- I’d love to see coaches accredited by one professional body, not by the body which trained them, and to reach a core competency
- It’s too opaque
- We want common competencies. We need: ‘Has the person done work on themselves?’ It’s the inner journey and the business credibility. It’s a nightmare trying to differentiate someone who can operate at a very senior level globally from a coach at manager level. There is nothing that equates with what I am looking for in business experience and gravitas
- We need core standards
- It’s about the level at which we go to coach with a little ‘c’ and Coach with big ‘C’ – as a professional coach
- Are the levels important?
- Sponsors are doing a great job getting the right person in front of the right person. I don’t think bodies appreciate the work sponsors do
- We need the sponsors; they’re not muppets
- We should be joining hands; that’s the ethos
- We need to be ahead of the game; to invite sponsors in
- What are the bodies doing to include, to collaborate, with users of the service? Where is their (sponsors’) voice?
- You’ve got to make it something people want to join
- This is the start. This is a landmark event that Coaching at Work has originated
- We have to ensure coaching fits our needs, but with clear articulation of professional coaching, a pool of coaches where we can understand their different offers. We’re keen on various stages so we can see progression… We want support with how we manage the fit. It feels like the sponsors are at the cutting edge
- Our community is becoming savvy enough to want coaching from someone who knows their world. Call the managers as coaches something different, cos they ain’t that. I don’t think they should be accredited unless we want to create another industry
- We could define what internal coach means
- (multiple voices) That would be really helpful
- It behoves the sponsor to put some money in the pot here
- It’s difficult to get the knowledge base – we’re more like trades bodies
- Why a profession?
- To guarantee standards and to minimise risks
- The average person on the street wants one set of standards
- What’s stopping us?
- Collaboration
- There’s the enemy – the credibility of coaching. If we don’t get our act together, we’ll get infiltrated by charlatans and coaching will fizzle out
- I’d be willing to fund a coming together, to find out that the common core is that all the bodies buy into …we can talk about ROI and timescales
- This might be a red herring – I’d be more willing to invest in commonality, in equivalence in standards
- I’m getting excited about a level that we can call professional. Could all the bodies identify that?
- If we can all get together… It would be a massive step (much nodding)
- If we could just get that – the professional accredited coach
- That would really help. If I had a pound for every hour I’ve spent trying to (explain)
- It would be helpful to have something that says what it (professional coach) looks like
- The difficulty of drawing the line
- Explore notion of an umbrella organisation – wouldn’t that be a good thing?