<p>First, the coaching industry must recognize the dynamic context in which coaching occurs. This context, which has been described as VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) describes the state of leadership today and requires coaches to be fully present with their clients, shifting their practice in the moment to meet their clients where they are. In spite of coaching’s dynamic context, the coaching industry relies on static competency frameworks, which tend to assume predictable cause-effect relationships in stable client environments.</p> <p>The static competency <a href=”https://www.coachfederation.org/credential/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=2206″ target=”_blank”>framework</a> for coaches in the ICF is depicted below:</p> <p>• Meeting ethical guidelines and professional standards</p> <p>• Establishing the coaching agreement</p> <p>• Establishing trust and intimacy with the client</p> <p>• Coaching presence</p> <p>• Active listening</p> <p>• Powerful questioning</p> <p>• Direct communication</p> <p>• Creating awareness</p> <p>• Designing actions</p> <p>• Planning and goal setting</p> <p>• Managing progress and accountability</p> <p><strong>No. 2: Failure To Capture The Complexities Of Coach Development</strong></p> <p>Second, the coaching industry must adequately capture the complexities of coaching in their credentialing models. Currently, the industry tends to rely on linear, staged approaches to coach development and credentialing. For example, some credentialing models assume that coach practitioners develop in stable and predictable ways and that coaching mastery is a fixed, definable end state.</p> <p>The linear, staged coach development model for the ICF’s <a href=”https://www.coachfederation.org/credential/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=2200&amp;navItemNumber=767PCC:https://www.coachfederation.org/credential/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=2203&amp;navItemNumber=777MCC” target=”_blank”>Accredited Coach Training Program</a> (ACTP) path is depicted below:</p>

<p><strong>No. 3: Failure To Consistently And Comprehensively Calculate Coaching Value</strong></p> <p>The coaching industry must consistently and comprehensively calculate coaching value. Adequate measures of coaching value are needed and can be borrowed from Kirkpatrick’s&nbsp;<a href=”https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/kirkpatrick.htm” target=”_blank”>seminal training evaluation model:</a></p> <p><strong>Level 1: Reaction:</strong> The degree to which clients are satisfied by coaching engagements</p> <p><strong>Level 2: Learning:</strong> The degree to which clients acquire the intended knowledge, skills and attributes through coaching engagements</p> <p><strong>Level 3: Behavior:</strong> The degree to which clients change their behavior(s) as a result of coaching engagements</p> <p><strong>Level 4: Results:</strong> The degree to which client organizations benefit from coaching engagements</p> <p>A fifth level of evaluation has been <a href=”https://books.google.com/books?id=3V6bCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=gray,+garvey+and+lane+2016+ROCI&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=BccpCBwNJC&amp;sig=yLCRmxTWujSDNa6udx4cxsG93us&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj8k9mP1qLWAhUM_IMKHcMJBCkQ6AEISTAK#v=onepage&amp;q=ROI&amp;f=true” target=”_blank”>suggested</a> by coaching scholars and practitioners: return on coaching investment (ROCI), which is calculated as&nbsp;(estimated benefit of coaching – cost of coaching) / (cost of coaching) x 100%. To date, ROCI has been difficult to calculate and compare across coaching engagements.</p> <p>In summary, the coaching industry has failed to recognize the dynamic context in which coaching occurs, to adequately capture the complexities of coaching in coach development models, and failed to consistently and comprehensively calculate coaching value. In light of the coaching industry’s success, it is imperative that coaches, clients and coaching organizations continue to work together to find and implement swift solutions.</p>” readability=”114.20268067379″>

Coaching is estimated to be a $2 billion global industry that is rapidly growing, as evidenced by a dramatic increase in coaches, professional coaching organizations and coaching-related research. In order to sustain this growth, coaches, clients and coaching organizations must remedy three critical failures related to coaching: context, complexity and calculus.

A Rise In Coaching

According to the International Coach Federation (ICF), the largest professional coaching organization in the U.S., the number of worldwide coaches has grown from 47,500 in 2012 to 53,300 in 2016 with the addition of approximately 1,500 coaches per year for the last four years. Western Europe was estimated to have the highest number of coaches with 18,800 coaches in 2016. North America followed closely behind with an estimated 17,500 coaches in 2016.

The number of professional coaching organizations is increasing. In 2014, Peer Resources aggregated a list of 23 coaching associations. Today, Peer Resources lists 36 professional coaching associations, an increase of about four associations per year for the last three years.

Coaching-related research is increasing in depth and breadth. A search for peer-reviewed publications on the topic of “executive coaching” in the PsycINFO database yielded 32 citations published between 1995 and 2000. The same search yielded 238 citations published between 2012 and 2017.

Despite its success, the coaching industry suffers from three critical failures.

No. 1: Failure To Recognize The Dynamic Context Of Coaching

First, the coaching industry must recognize the dynamic context in which coaching occurs. This context, which has been described as VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) describes the state of leadership today and requires coaches to be fully present with their clients, shifting their practice in the moment to meet their clients where they are. In spite of coaching’s dynamic context, the coaching industry relies on static competency frameworks, which tend to assume predictable cause-effect relationships in stable client environments.

The static competency framework for coaches in the ICF is depicted below:

• Meeting ethical guidelines and professional standards

• Establishing the coaching agreement

• Establishing trust and intimacy with the client

• Coaching presence

• Active listening

• Powerful questioning

• Direct communication

• Creating awareness

• Designing actions

• Planning and goal setting

• Managing progress and accountability

No. 2: Failure To Capture The Complexities Of Coach Development

Second, the coaching industry must adequately capture the complexities of coaching in their credentialing models. Currently, the industry tends to rely on linear, staged approaches to coach development and credentialing. For example, some credentialing models assume that coach practitioners develop in stable and predictable ways and that coaching mastery is a fixed, definable end state.

The linear, staged coach development model for the ICF’s Accredited Coach Training Program (ACTP) path is depicted below:

No. 3: Failure To Consistently And Comprehensively Calculate Coaching Value

The coaching industry must consistently and comprehensively calculate coaching value. Adequate measures of coaching value are needed and can be borrowed from Kirkpatrick’s seminal training evaluation model:

Level 1: Reaction: The degree to which clients are satisfied by coaching engagements

Level 2: Learning: The degree to which clients acquire the intended knowledge, skills and attributes through coaching engagements

Level 3: Behavior: The degree to which clients change their behavior(s) as a result of coaching engagements

Level 4: Results: The degree to which client organizations benefit from coaching engagements

A fifth level of evaluation has been suggested by coaching scholars and practitioners: return on coaching investment (ROCI), which is calculated as (estimated benefit of coaching – cost of coaching) / (cost of coaching) x 100%. To date, ROCI has been difficult to calculate and compare across coaching engagements.

In summary, the coaching industry has failed to recognize the dynamic context in which coaching occurs, to adequately capture the complexities of coaching in coach development models, and failed to consistently and comprehensively calculate coaching value. In light of the coaching industry’s success, it is imperative that coaches, clients and coaching organizations continue to work together to find and implement swift solutions.