Organizational Psychology

Editorial office

Address: 20, Myasnitskaya, 101000 Moscow, Russia

Email: orgpsyjournal@hse.ru

Our Partners






Myles Downey1
  • 1 The School of Coaching, 1st Floor, Building 5, Chiswick Park, 566 Chiswick High Road, London W4 5YA, UK

The Development of Professional Standards in Coaching (In English)

2014. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 46–47 [issue contents]
The author argues that we have reached a point where in order to protect the discipline of coaching, the reputation of good coaches and the interests of the clients where some common understanding needs to be created. And with that professional standards. In “professional standards” two areas are involved: the professionalism that any practitioner should bring to their craft and the standards specific to the craft. The first are easier to gain consensus on then the second. There are two things specifically that give rise to the need. The first is the lack of a commonly held definition of coaching and the second is the quality of coaching. As for the definition there are numerous, different approaches, some psychologically based, others practically or experientially based, still others philosophically or spiritually based and worst of those born of some kind of homespun “wisdom”. And there is the vast divergence in the quality of the coaching, from the truly excellent to the truly awful. And the mediocre in between. How can it be that it is still possible to act as a coach with no formal training or, as is the case for so many, to be operating on the basis of a training program attended ten years ago? The author explores the controversy that, to date, the drive for professional standards has been driven by independent self-appointed organisations. While there are many well-intentioned people behind these organisations who give considerable time and energy to promoting the cause of coaching, the nature of these organisations is such that there is an inherent problem that is difficult to get past. In order to have a voice such an organisation must have large numbers of members so they are inevitably inclusive, anyone can join. Inclusivity and excellence do not make easy bedfellows. Suggested part of the solution is tohave on-going accreditation, that each coach should have a renewable license to coach, valid fora maximum of two years. The assessment would be made by a peer group who would speak withclients and player/coaches and either attend sessions or review recordings. The assessment would need to be carried out against an agreed framework of standards. I think of no simpler means thatwould, in a very short period of time transform the experience of coaching for players and clients.

Citation: Downey, M. (2014). The Development of Professional Standards in Coaching. Organizacionnaâ psihologiâ (Organizational Psychology), Vol. 4, No 1, pp. 46-47 (in English)
Rambler's Top100 rss