Working through the accreditation jungle

Coaches using the Ask David AI often ask about accreditations.

By David Clutterbuck · 3 min read

Coaches using the Ask David AI often ask about accreditations. It’s not surprising – there are numerous differences between the professional bodies and an ongoing debate about the role that accreditations play.

The core argument in favour of accreditations is that they provide a common standard recognised by both practitioners and buyers of coaching. The problem lies in the word common. For example, ICF competencies and EMCC standards have substantial overlaps, but also significant differences that reflect diverse origins.

ICF and EMCC: different roots

At a simple level, ICF competencies derive from an assumption that – at least for beginner coaches – there is a “right” way to coach. This is reflected in the assessment process, which relies heavily on observed sessions, with an examiner looking for a list of required and unacceptable behaviours. However, as ICF coaches mature, they increasingly reject these restrictions. There is also a growing debate around the cultural domination of the competency framework, which is heavily dominated by North American cultural assumptions.

EMCC accreditations are rooted in the twin principles of evidence base and cultural diversity. Instead of assessment based upon observed sessions aimed at uniformity, they assess the quality of a candidate’s reflections on their practice and growth as a practitioner. They also integrate coaching and mentoring – a stance borne out by evidence from the Coach Maturity Research Group, which finds that as coaches mature, they make increasing use of their experience and self and are far less concerned with process.

Ask David users seem to be exploring both the practical requirements of accreditation (years of experience, coaching hours, supervision needs and support etc) as well as the required shift in mindset required to reach mastery which goes well beyond the application process.

Accreditation inflation

A worrying trend is what can be called “accreditation inflation”. The multiple layers of accreditation in both ICF and EMCC were intended originally to provide a career-long pathway to professional growth. However, whether through vanity or for self-marketing, many coaches are using the system to acquire higher levels of accreditation in relatively short periods. The intended introspection and personal growth can’t happen in these circumstances – so the reputation of the accreditation frameworks is under threat.

What do you want an accreditation for?

A question for would-be coaches, therefore, is: What precisely do I want an accreditation for? Some of the answers may be:

• Some corporations and government bodies require coaches to be accredited and a decreasing number may insist on a specific accreditation. However, many of the most successful coaches do not have a formal accreditation.
• To have greater confidence that I am “doing it right”. However, “doing it right” looks different as you mature as a coach. It is easy to become trapped into simplistic, poorly evidenced practice and not advance into mastery.
• To give structure to my development as a coach. This reason is much more tenable! Rather than rely on serendipity, following an accreditation route can provide purpose and impetus to your developmental journey.

You might like to experiment yourself with your next steps on your accreditation journey by talking it through with my AI Clone - Ask David. You can engage in a short demonstration or sign up for a 7 day free trial.

Permalink