I have tended to reject the rules of the game as portrayed by ICF. I may be motivated by my bias based on not being officially trained and passed their tests. However, I believe there is a solution somewhere on the spectrum which is probably NOT near one end or the other.
For example, I’m averse to outright telling and selling a client (as Dave was a bit of a pushover for ). I think it best for me, and for serving the client’s growth, that I not express or suggest my good idea until I have walked beside my client on a journey to a solution that the client participates in creating. The activity the client is engaged in entrains the client through the experience of creating a solution him- or herself so that the learning through experience and participation is present.
So I am no longer anti-ICF, but I’m still not a fan!
Lowell, thank you for sharing your viewpoint. Always appreciated!
Dave Buck always provocative! Thank you for being courageous, honest and progressive by exposing a topic that most coaching leaders avoid. When I started 15 years ago as a coach and ICF member, I was definitely more conservative in my approach. However, I realized early on that I needed to get out of my comfort zone.
In my coaching, I practice fluidity knowing that it’s a dance in the session between what I call the “classic/questioning” method vs. the “experiential/improv” method.
In order to best serve our clients, timely results are most important and I believe this combination works very effectively. I look forward to seeing the future changes and growth that will occur in our business.
Robin, thank you for sharing your experience. We learn from each other!
I appreciated the explanation on how coaching has changed and the possible need to redefine what we are doing in the digital age. What is being sold as coaching does seem to be more about teaching rather than coaching. I was feeling confused by this but now see the distinction better. Thanks Coach Dave.
Kimberly, thank you! We're glad the podinar was clarifying.