Noticing My Assumptions About Exams

Usually, I write in Word, edit and think about my blog posts.  I'll try something different today.  I'll compose straight on my blog post.  Sometimes that results in stream-of-consciousness thinking,  Well, okay.

Thank you to those of you who follow my blog.  I pretty much write what I think and experience in the world of professional coaching.  I've always been sort of an iconoclast (breaking down traditions) ...not so much that I get in big trouble, but often enough to limit my "fan club membership."  LOL

I've been an assessor on a whole lot of exams over the past few months.  After eight years of exams I'm noticing something that I assumed over the years:  the number of client coaching hours is important to the quality of coaching. 

Here's the deal.  Recently I assessed some ACC exams (you know, 100+ client coaching hours, 60+ hours of training).  Okay.  Well, one scored well into the MCC range (you  know, 2,500 client coaching hours, 200+ hours of training). Over the years at least 3 coaches earned the highest scores from me.  Okay.  Maybe that does't prove anything ... it's certainly anecdotal.  There are some "naturals" in this profession.

Here's another observation.  I also recently assessed some candidates for either the PCC or MCC credential (you know, PCC=750+ client coaching hours, 125+ hours of training with MCC=2,500 client coaching hours, 200+ hours of training).  The details are for anyone not familiar with all of this.  At least 6 coaches tested out at the highest level (MCC) but were going for the PCC credential.  Most test out at the PCC level (overwhelmingly) and a few (I'm sad to say) barely make the ACC level.

Anecdotally speaking (don't forget that), I notice that the most achieved score is in the PCC range ... frankly where it ought to be. 

Don't be misled.  I am not advocating for just one credential but simply making an observation that PCC is where we're going to find ICF coaches.  Makes sense, actually, since the training programs train to that level.

Recently I've spoken to groups here and there via conference calls.  I've been reporting another, possibly related, observation.  I can honestly say that, with rare exception, the only interest the public has in the ICF credential is the "CC" part.  No one asks about the "M" in front of mine.  I treat it as a post-grad designation, quite frankly and work hard to earn my spot in that world.

As an executive coach who is actively putting together a power team of top executive coaches, I'm interested in pure coaching skill coupled with organization experience and a willingness to learn a new 360. 

Now it's time to open up the credentialing  process ... at least, have open minds.  Surprise I would say that?  Hmmm. I tried hard to speak to this several years ago but ... well, who needs to relive the past?  There such a thing as global collaboration. 

I'll let that percolate.                                                                                     (Saturn with 4 moons.)