During a mastermind group discussion, several of the members (all who are business coaches) mentioned a movement among psychologists to license those involved in the coaching industry including:
- Business Coaches
- Corporate Coaches
- Executive Coaches
- Life Coaches
- Transition Coaches
The belief is that licensing will improve the quality. However, this is not the real issue. The true issue is that licensing suggests higher credibility. Potential clients will gravitate towards those who are licensed because of the cultural conditioning respective to licensing. After all, when an individual jumps through all of the licensing hoops, this person must have the knowledge and skills to deliver the desired results. And .
Most recent samples:Gray, Ann's Research Practice for Cultural Studies: Ethnographic
Revolution in the Making of the Modern World: Social Identities,
Unfortunately, licensing does not increase results. Look at the thousands of teachers who are licensed. Educational results as demonstrated through high school graduation rates are dismal at best. With the millions of dollars being invested in training new teachers and providing state of the art technology, we should be graduating at least 90% of all young people not the 75% national average.
What this licensing movement for coaching really demonstrates is a strategy:
- To remove competition
- To increase revenue to institutions or organizations who train coaches
- To increase the revenue of psychologists
The U.S. coaching industry is estimated to exceed $2 Billion and is growing at an annual rate of 40%. Limiting access to this market under the umbrella of licensing makes sense especially with research suggesting that the majority of coaches earn less than $20,000 and less than 10% earn over $100,000.
What the coaching industry does not need is another bureaucracy. What the industry does need is a way to identify those coaches who deliver results to their clients. Licensing is not the answer.
留言列表
