Collaboration across the profession to educate buyers and the public about what best practice looks like and to develop a joint code of ethics and complaints procedure are your preferred ways of encouraging good practice and reducing incompetent, poor and unethical practice, according to the Poor Practice 2010 Survey.
The survey was carried out among Coaching at Work readers and members of the following professional bodies: the Association for Coaching (AC); the British Psychological Society’s Special Group in Coaching Psychology; the European Mentoring & Coaching Council (EMCC); the International Coach Federation (ICF), and the Society for Coaching Psychology (SCP). Some 529 people responded to the survey in April to June 2010.
Last issue (vol 5, issue 4, pp14-18), we reported on what you think constitutes poor, incompetent or unethical practice and the extent to which you’re encountering it. Here we look at what you believe should be done, if anything, about such practice.
What should be done?
The bar has been raised considerably in recent years, with growing numbers of coaches choosing accreditation and professional body membership. The latter bodies have been stepping up their respective games in ethics, standards, accreditation, CPD and supervision. All have codes of ethics, the ICF being the first in the world to create a code of ethics in coaching.
“It forms the backbone of all we hold dear” says Deborah Price, UK ICF director of credentialing and ethics. “It is tried and tested, supports, protects and educates our members, protects the buyers of coaching, and helps maintain the highest professional standards … all ICF members have to sign up to the code of ethics and are made aware of the ethical conduct review process,” she explains, reporting that there have been only a handful of ethical complaints against ICF members in the past five years.
Increasingly we are seeing more collaboration between the professional bodies, for example, with the Coaching Roundtable’s work on the Statement of Shared Professional Values and its current work on accreditation. However, what came across strongly in the survey was that you would like to see collaboration in other areas.
Collaboration
The most popular ways of preventing incompetent, poor and unethical practice were the professional bodies working together to produce a joint code of ethics (84 per cent and 86 per cent, respectively).
Collaboration to produce a joint complaints procedure was popular too – 76 per cent of respondents saw it as a way to address incompetence and 72 per cent as a way to prevent poor and unethical practice.
Encouraging buyers to use coaches belonging to a professional body and who subscribe to a code of ethics (81 per cent) was the second most popular way of addressing incompetence.
“It seems that a key message is that collaboration between the professional bodies is the preferred way forward to help tackle some of these important issues,” says Dr Siobhain O’Riordan, chair of the SCP.
The AC and EMCC also welcomed the call. Global CEO of the AC Katherine Tulpa, says: “This certainly builds on the great work done to date, including the joint Statement of Shared Professional Values, and the joint working parties in the areas of accreditation and supervision.”
Mike Hurley, outgoing president of the EMCC UK, adds: “The results highlight what practitioners, who are dedicated to professional standards in this sector, regard as priority focus areas to ensure consistent application of the highest standards.”
Hurley stressed that for coaching to be a profession, a number of factors need to be in place, including standards of entry, codes of practice, a means of monitoring practitioners and of addressing poor practice.
There are still many coaches out there with very little in the way of qualifications, CPD and supervision, who may be bringing the profession into disrepute with their practices. Many are not members of professional bodies though most are undoubtedly well-intentioned. How can we harness this good intent and ensure these coaches are given the support they need for acceptable practice? What is good, acceptable, incompetent, poor and unethical practice?
It is difficult enough to reach consensus within the profession, without expecting buyers and others to know what they should expect. “There is still much work to do in assisting coaches and potential coaching clients understand what best practice looks like and what to expect,” says Gladeana MacMahon, chair of the AC UK.
Clearly what is acceptable practice depends very much on the context, the contracting and so on – this emerged very strongly in the survey. We made the distinction between incompetent, and poor and incompetent behaviour because there is a huge difference between someone being slightly incompetent and someone doing something very seriously ‘wrong’.
One respondent says: “There is a difference between someone who consistently works with clients who are vulnerable and not suitable for coaching, to someone who has unwittingly attempted to work beyond their competence and may benefit from supervision and/or training, although if harm is done this may still warrant some kind of sanction.”
“For example”, says MacMahon, “all coaches have a duty of care to their clients (which is upheld in law) and if a client were a danger to themselves or to others then such situations would mean the coach would be legally and morally obliged to ensure that the appropriate action was taken to protect all parties. However, such instances are rare and when this situation arises it is discussed with the client. Breaking confidentiality would normally be seen an unacceptable.”
There seems to be a case for more debate about what we agree to be good and best practice and to explore further the spectrum of behaviours.
Coaching at Work is planning other initiatives, including a survey on good practice. Some of you were not comfortable with the emphasis on the negative in this survey although it was prompted by genuine concerns raised in coach selection panels. For example, the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement and i-coach academy had pondered on how to respond to poor practice. Others welcomed the research as timely.
Regulation
Many would like to avoid regulation. Only 14 per cent of you feel the British government should regulate coaching in the UK in order to tackle incompetent practice, while 13 per cent feel this is the best way to address poor or unethical practice.
One respondent says: “I don’t think the government would need to regulate coaching if the profession can come together effectively in this way. A single, independent complaints procedure and a register with minimum standards of entry and adherence to a code of conduct with requirements, for example, for CPD and insurance, would demonstrate good practice.”
Education
Some 73 per cent of you thought incompetence could be addressed by the professional bodies working together to educate the public and coaching buyers on excellent, good, and poor practice. This dropped to 47 per cent of respondents when asked if it could be addressed by professional bodies individually.
Some 67 per cent of you agreed cross-body education was the way to reduce poor or unethical practice, dropping to 45 per cent of those who ‘voted’ for education by individual bodies.
One respondent says: “I’m in favour of professionalising/formalising the coaching industry through engagement, peer pressure and strong codes of ethics, supported by awareness campaigns to re-educate coaches and clients – rather than legislation. There should be a formal complaints system in place for serious, persistent ethical/poor practice.”
Another points out: “In a world where almost everyone and anyone can call themselves a coach, much education needs to be provided to buyers and clients about accreditation, coach-specific training and best practice and ethical behaviour.
“I think robust promotion of good practice to buyers is key and most likely the route to filter coaches who have an appetite to stretch into the knotty areas and challenges of really good practice versus those who don’t. I guess I’m up for us raising the level of debate for both buyers and practitioners rather than going for the big stick.”
A joint coaching register was chosen by 56 per cent and 55 per cent. However, some of you were very anti this. One respondent says: “In my previous experience as a nurse, forcing practitioners to register with a governing body does not necessarily eliminate poor practice. This is difficult to police and relies on other professionals and/or clients whistle-blowing, or a serious, untoward incident occurring. Many people carry on working incompetently for years, regulated or not, without any repercussions or any indication of poor practice being flagged up.”
CPD and supervision
The respondent is instead in favour of CPD and supervision. “Increased CPD requirements and supervision, I feel, are more likely to be effective in highlighting areas of poor or unethical practice.”
A majority felt that making supervision and CPD mandatory for professional bodies would help. Some 63 per cent and 56 per cent respectively agreed that mandatory CPD was a way to reduce incompetence, and poor or unethical practice. For mandatory supervision, the figures were 68 per cent and 62 per cent.
Independent
While government regulation was unpopular, less so was an independent body with no professional body associations in order to deal with complaints: 36 per cent and 37 per cent respectively voted for this as a way to deal with incompetence, and poor and unethical practice.
“An independent body to which clients can take complaints would be great but it can’t be one of the existing professional bodies as their interest lies in having as many members as possible, which leads to conflict of interests,” says one respondent.
Some point out that the problem lies with the input many coaches in training receive and that the bar needs to be raised in education.
“There are too many conflicting organisations and messages regarding coaching … The bar needs to be set much higher than it is and the coaching skillset needs to be re-addressed to match the client’s needs. Anyone with spare cash can become a coach regardless of their background and abilities. The bad practice starts at the training organisation and this is where the change should begin,” says one respondent.
Monitoring
We were interested in whether you think there is scope for professional bodies or an independent body to ‘monitor’ cases of poor practice and if so, how that might happen. Or should this be left to supervision between client and coach?
One respondent said: “I think it is impossible to regulate against bad practice; it shows up in all professions. Training and high ethical standards work better than policing. Those who police are often the worst offenders!”
The majority of you felt the behaviours listed should be monitored either through supervision or by a professional body. The latter was deemed best, particularly in the following cases: misleading clients by misrepresenting credentials or a professional body (75 per cent); breaking client confidentiality (58 per cent); becoming sexually intimate with a client (56 per cent) and developing an inappropriately personal relationship with a client (52 per cent).
Whereas on the whole you didn’t opt for monitoring by an independent body, for the previous four cases the percentages did rise to 19 per cent for misrepresentation or inappropriate personal relationships; 25 per cent for sexual intimacy with clients, and 29 per cent for practising therapy in coaching. A third (33 per cent) of you thought acting as a consultant in coaching assignments required no monitoring.
One respondent says: “I think the ongoing discussion on what is ethical and good practice is much more important than monitoring. For obvious, severe breeches, there needs to be a rigid and independent process with real power of enforcement, real impact for those coaches and a real limitation or suspension of their ‘professional activities’ as a coach.
Another respondent says: “Coaching lends itself to learning and improving, not measuring and censoring. How can we ensure we don’t create a ‘blame’ culture where people hide problems rather than sharing them? I do have concerns about monitoring in a ‘policing’ way – isn’t it totally against the beliefs of coaching? Don’t we want to encourage people to come forward with their problems so that they can be helped to learn and develop?”
How would you respond to these behaviours?
| Behaviour | How you rate it | What should be done? |
| Practising therapy while coaching | Unethical (61%) | Professional body to offer remedial training or education (65%) Report coach to professional body and suspend if complaint upheld (22%) |
| Working with clients with issues traditionally seen as best suited to therapy, eg, child abuse | Unethical (65%) | Professional body to offer education/training (66%) |
| Acting as consultant within coaching | Poor practice (47%) | No action (54%) Professional body to offer education/training (41%) |
| Breaking client confidentiality | Unethical (91%) | Report coach to professional body and suspend if complaint upheld (64%) Professional body to offer remedial training/education (36%) |
| Developing inappropriate personal relationship with client | Unethical (91%) | Report and suspend coach if complaint upheld (67%) Offer remedial training (25%) |
| Becoming sexually intimate with client | Unethical (95%) | Report to professional body and suspend if complaint upheld (74%) Report to independent body and suspend if complaint upheld (27%) |
| Making client dependent on coaching | Unethical (67%) | Professional body to offer remedial activity (70%) Report to professional body and suspend if complaint upheld (24%) |
| Misrepresenting professional bodies or one’s credentials | Unethical (93%) | Report to professional body/suspend if complaint upheld (79%) Report to independent body/suspend if complaint upheld (20%) |
| Failing to contract | Poor practice (76%) | Professional body to offer remedial activity (71%) No action (29%) |
| Failing to review/gather feedback | Poor practice (78%) | Professional body to offer remedial activity (68%) No action (33%) |
| Failing to evaluate | Poor practice (79%) | Professional body to offer remedial activity (67%) No action (34%) |
Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 5