Profile

Cover photo
CB Bowman
129 followers|37,980 views
AboutPostsPhotos

Stream

CB Bowman

Discussion  - 
 
 
Interesting cover story in April's "Marketing News," one of several American Marketing Association (AMA) publications. Particularly interesting on two fronts: 1) What does this mean for the ACEC and all of its digital outreach and; 2) Next Thursday AMA-Fairfield County Chapter presents John K. Grace, Managing Partner of BrandTaxi and former head of the valuation practice at Interbrand, and Tony Tiernan, CEO of Authentic Identity Inc., and former head of Global Marketing for The Boston Consulting Group (BCG). These noted branding gurus and marketing thought leaders will assert just the opposite of the cover story - that in today's digital world and rush to respond immediately to everyone on a personal level, storytelling is more critical than ever before!! Additional information and registration details at: bit.ly/AMAbrands
1 comment on original post
1
Add a comment...

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Coaching Supervision, A Tool or a Mandate?
By CB Bowman, MBA, MCEC, BCC, CMC
March 29, 2015

Here is a radical  question, is “coaching supervision” much to do about something, or much to do about nothing with regard to its possible infestation  into coaching in the United States? 

The concept of coaching supervision is swimming its way to the U.S. from European waters, where by law it is mandatory.  The law requires that, executive coaches have  coaching supervision.

What is “Coaching Supervision”?  According to the Coaching Supervision Academy, coaching supervision will provide coaches with the following http://coachingsupervisionacademy.com/supervision/what-is-coaching-supervision/:
  Clear Contracting  – multi-party contracting where appropriate.
  Ensuring that standards and ethics are maintained.
  Establishing good boundaries.
  Enhancing reflectivity – working with content and process.
  Attending to the Coach’s Personal Development. 
  Creating the Working Alliance.
  Deepening Coaching Presence.
  Building the Internal Supervisor.
  Offering new perspectives to the coach.
  Increasing the coach’s interventions and tools.
  Being sensitive to the coach’s Learning and Coaching Style.
  Teaching about Coaching Psychology.
  Working with Parallel Process.
  Developing systemic thinking.
  Giving constructive feedback.
  Providing the coach with new tools.
  Creating experiments through which the coach can learn.
  Offering educative and restorative support to the coach.
  Working systemically – with coach, client and the wider field.
  Opening up new areas of competence for the coach.

It occurs to me that any Executive Coach who cares about their profession consistently ensures that the above actions take place as part of their annual professional development criteria; much of this occurs through being a member of a trade association. In fact, in many fields the above list is the reason that professionals belong to a minimum of two associations annually. 

There are many non-supporters of coaching supervision in the United States, as well as some supporters. It seems, though, that more and more of the non-supporters are raising their hands against this concept, especially as the discussion becomes more vocal and heated. 

This is probably due to the fact that in United States we are kindly referred to as the as the non-confrontational giant, except when freedoms are threatened. Americans also are known for their ability to strike back, strike hard, and strike accurately when their freedom is questioned or jeopardized. 

This surely appears to be the case here, especially for veteran Executive Coaches, when the freedom of self-determining how they will maintain the quality of their professionalism is at risk. 
It is clear that if given a choice verses a fait accompli of requiring the incorporation of this new aspect of coaching requirements into their professional standing, coaches might experience it as less of an infringement on their freedom or sense of dignity.

Having said all this, there may be a greater opportunity amongst us who actually do care about the quality of our work and the quality of  our profession. I present to you an option that lays within our ability to move out of the role of Executive Coach and  move into the space of Corporate Executive Coach; however, let’s not stop there. I also present to you the opportunity to move from Corporate Executive Coach to Enterprise Business Partner―which is not the same as a Business Coach or a Business Consultant. 

My personal thought is that now is the time to focus our attention on how to become a Enterprise Business Partner to our clients. If we agree that the Corporate Executive Coach is quite different than the Executive Coach in that the Corporate Executive Coach has to walk the fine line between coaching and consulting—which is something that’s not necessarily taught or embraced traditionally by those involved with Executive Coaching, then it gives us the opportunity to incorporate a paradigm shift by presenting ourselves as business partners. 

I imagine that I will receive a great deal of negative responses from those who are traditionalists. That is, before they really take a close look at why the likes of Marshall Goldsmith, Gary Ranker, John Maxwell, Mike Myatt and Johanna Rothman are successful— they are business partners to their clients. 

In truth there really is no need to object; what is being presented is simply a conceptual thought of a different color. It states, if we want to be respected at a different level than we are currently, for the tremendous work that we do, perhaps it’s time to elevate how we are perceived in the boardroom. If we want to move from simply being see as a remedial solution to performance behavior concerns then we need to present ourselves as an integral part of our client’s business.

How many of us can identify the challenges that are currently in play for the CXO’s as related to human capital? Basically there are three areas, as we are now in the predicted era of  the war-on-talent. This is the result of retiring baby boomers, the recent recession, business growth in countries to which we have outsourced, and zero population growth. These three things are called RRI:
Recruitment
Retention
Investment Dollars
The critical question is, “How do we get to the boardroom to make a difference in these areas?” Once we figure out the answer, executive coaching will elevate itself from the arena of being depicted as the “Wild Wild West” by Harvard Business Review to the level of respect that we so much desire and deserve. The question of coaching supervision may well become a moot point.

Is it possible that the focus on coaching supervision provides a golden opportunity to expand our vision to areas that will elevate us and where coaching supervision will become just a tool and not a raison d'être or discourse? 
1
Add a comment...

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Vikki Brock via bounce.secureserver.net 
7:35 AM (8 hours ago)
Reply
to Magdalena 
Many of you have weighed in on how to reduce the amount of emails and continue the discussion with a broader audience.

As such this conversation will move to the ICF blog topic “The Case For Coaching Supervision”.  I have requested Magda to change the topic to a more neutral topic such as “Mentoring and Supervision Dialogue”. I will comment to the other three private blogs that this conversation has moved to the ICF blog site, along with providing the link http://coachfederation.org/blog/index.php/4075/.  This way there will only be one place that we need to follow for the full conversation.

I also have re-submitted the following request to Magda:
 ICF Australasia Coaching Supervision Task Force member names (+position on coaching supervision), report and recommendation made to the ICF Global Board in July 2014.  Note: The  2014 ICF Australasia Annual Report page 11 stated "The Supervision task force submitted a 3-year plan to include coaching supervision as part of the ICF credentialing process. The recommendation, which has been accepted by ICF Global, included coach supervisor qualities that correlate to the ICF Core Competencies and a process whereby coaches can become qualified coaching supervisors and log professional supervision hours to be claimed as Continuing Coach Education (CCE).”
ICF Coaching Supervision Phase 2 Task Force created January 2015, member names, charter, and timeline.

It is important that the ICF Board, volunteers, and staff remember that they are there to serve the members in an open and transparent manner. Keeping the process, names of those involved, report and full recommendations secret from the members is not serving the members.

I also believe it is important to understand who was involved with researching the evidence and recommending the adoption of coaching supervision initially within the ICF (around 2012 or so).  The purpose of these requests is to determine if an evidence-based look at the pros/cons of coaching supervision has been taken.  My experience with the ICF ISO move to one credential leads me to believe a balanced approach has not been taken.

Please invite your colleagues to join, or at least become knowledgable on, the conversation.

 Vikki


Attachments area
Preview attachment PastedGraphic-5.tiff
Image
PastedGraphic-5.tiff
1
Add a comment...

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Re: Task Force/Committee Webpage?
Inbox
Rey Carr via bounce.secureserver.net 
7:35 PM (7 hours ago)
Reply
to Barbara 
Hi Barbara:

It is ironic that the ICF blog name is “The Case for Coaching Supervision” when the majority of the comments do not support, are skeptical of, or seriously question the validity of supervision.

And in typical ICF fashion almost every comment that expresses a ‘critique’ of the ICF position/policy/perspective on the ICF blog, is responded to by the ICF with a disclaimer saying the ICF is not taking any position, making any policy, or expressing any perspective.

I’m sorry to learn that CB has started yet another forum to discuss this coaching supervision issue using Google+. And I respect and appreciate the forum function of the Library of Professional Coaching might have been a better place to have this discussion. But having three other places besides this grass roots exchange to discuss this issue could be hijacking the energy of this group.

I’m all for broadening the discussion and having more input. The advantage of more permanent forums (like Google+, the LPC, or the ICF blog) is that they make it easier to follow the entire thread of discussion since all comments remain visible. But the disadvantage of keeping up with all the forums, including this informal one, is clearly beyond my time and energy. (Here’s where an enterprising software app developer could step in and say, “Now you can publish to all forums with just one click.” Yes, but I don’t really care about publishing in all forums, I want to be able to read and learn from all, and I don’t have the time or energy to do that!)

One last comment. I’d appreciate it if contributors to this forum would stop placing all the email addresses in the CC area and instead place them in the BCC area. It’s just to easy for someone to harvest our email for non-forum purposes when they are so clearly visible in the CC area.

Cheers.

Rey

On Mar 24, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Barbara Luther, MCC <barbara@addca.com> wrote:

> Hi, Magda,
>
> I went to this blog, thinking it would be an open conversation but the Name of the blog is:  The Case FOR Coaching Supervision.  How is that an open forum on the topic?  Here's another example of why it feels like this is a done deal with ICF.
>
> I'm not comfortable stepping into a blog that's clearly labeled as opposing my perspective.  It certainly does not feel inviting or open.
>
> Warmly,
>
> Barbara
1
Add a comment...

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 
CB Bowman <cb@acec-website.org>
Mar 17 (8 days ago)
Reply
to Rey, Vikki, Jeffrey, Jan, Margie, Alix, David, Micki, Lyn, Linda, Barbara, Judy, Helene, Adria, Tina, Fran, Meryl, Laura, Damian, Cynthia, Sylva, Carly, Michael, Lee, Linda 
Dear Ray and Vikki,

As a member of ICF, I had the same reaction when I read the information about the program. I was quite concerned about how the dialogue we were/are having fit into the upcoming program or if the decision about coaching supervision was a fait accompli, as it appears to be with Columbia University's Executive Coaching program. 

In my query to Magda on another occasions I find her very willing to hear opposing view points. The structure for ICF allows for incredible autonomy of the chapters. Sometimes the result can be the type of situation we are now faced with, where one chapter runs with the ball, that ball develops a ground swell, and before you know it, it becomes a de facto policy.  As a de facto policy it tends to become embedded into a belief system which is difficult to stop from becoming an official policy.

I wonder if it is to late for a inclusive decision/ discussion and we are left with a yes or no decision? 

Concerned CB



On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Rey Carr > wrote:
I applaud the Vancouver Island Chapter for putting together a forum on this timely topic. And Magda, this is not the Vancouver ICF Chapter, but the Vancouver Island ICF Chapter.

However, nothing in the information about this event suggests that a “balanced view” will be presented or that there might even exist alternative viewpoints. In addition, none of the scheduled presenters are members of the Vancouver Island chapter, which in itself is not a problem. It appears that the information that is coming from ICFHQ does not align with the promotional materials about the forum.

On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Vikki Brock  wrote:

> Hi Magda,
>
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> I have put in a request to be a presenter/panelist at the Vancouver ICF chapter event - there may be others on the cc list who would like to present a balanced opinion - so far all the names listed as presenters/panelists are supporters of coaching supervision.
>
> I checked online about the ANSE (Association of National Organisations for Supervision in Europe) and discovered a paper published in 2006 about its origin, aims, activities, and significance.  I have attached it - please send us all a copy of the ANSE item you referenced in your email.
>
> Has the ICF Phase 2 Task Force on Coaching Supervision been provided with access to the blogs and other information available on the dangers of coaching supervision?  It is important that they are working from a balanced perspective.  Is there a balanced perspective represented on the task force?  It is critical that we either have the names of the task force members so we can ensure that they have a balanced perspective or have representation on the task force.
>
> Note: there are more names on the cc list as people have requested to be kept informed of the coaching supervision dialogue.
>
>  Vikki
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Magdalena Mook <Magda.Mook wrote:
>
>> Hi Vikki,
>>
>> I am checking with the Marketing department on the Web site – we all were in Atlanta for several days for the Global Leaders Forum and now are getting caught up. I am sure I will get some specific information shortly and share.
>>
>> The Vancouver meeting – this one is organized by the chapter and not by ICF Global. We know about the event, encourage it  and suggested having a balanced opinion to be brought to the attention of all participating. I am sure they will and engage in open conversation with all involved.
>>
>> As mentioned before, when there is a position to be discussed, then a broader conversation/consultation will take place. Also as an FYI, the European Union ANSE project just released the proposed framework for coaching supervision for Europe. We are monitoring and bringing to the attention of the Task Force.
>>
>> Thanks for being in conversation,
>> M.
>>
>> Magdalena N. Mook
>> Executive Director/CEO
>> International Coach Federation

>> www.coachfederation.org
>> ICF - Advancing the Art, Science and Practice of Professional Coaching

>> From: Vikki Brock 
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:31 PM
>> To: Magda Mook
>> Cc: ...
>>
>> Hi Magda,
>>
>> I am emailing to find out the status of the ICF webpage that will provide us with the names of the Task Forces/Committees, their charters, and their members (with contact information).  I owe a response to the many individuals interested in the ICF’s Coaching Supervision Phase 2 Task Force.
>>
>> Also, I was a bit dismayed when I got an email on the “ICF Global Forum on Coaching Supervision - July 2015, Victoria BC”.  This appears to be a recognition and approval of Coaching Supervision by the ICF.  The text of the email is below my signature.  Several things concerned me, not the least was the statement that attendees would have "Access to ICF Global task force on Coaching Supervision”.  Also, the panelists and presenters are all known to be supporters of Coaching Supervision (and, in many cases, are coaching supervisors certified and trained by the Coaching Supervision Academy).  If this is indeed supported by ICF Global, then I am disappointed that the ICF is not taking an open approach to dialogue and discourse about the (delete "unnecessary”?) overlap between traditional coach mentoring and the new approach of coaching supervision – ICF’s support for coaching supervision sounds like a done deal.
>>
>> Please correct me if I am wrong.  I, and the cc’s to this email, want to be involved in determining the appropriate application or direction of Coaching Supervision (or not) within the ICF and our industry.
>>
>>  Vikki
>>
>> <image009.png>
>>
>> Subject: ICF Global Forum on Coaching Supervision - July 2015, Victoria BC
>>
>> http://vicoaches.org/forumoncoachsupervision/ >>
>> Forum on Coach Supervison
>>
>> July 4-5, 2015 Royal Roads University
>>
>> Hold the dates!!!
>>
>> Last fall, ICF Vancouver Island Board of Directors approved an international forum on Coach Supervision as a Chapter event,, to be held July 4-5th at Royal Roads University! This blurb gives you what we know now. Stay tuned for more details as they become available!
>>
>> An Invitation To Participate In A Global Conversation:
>>
>> The International Coach Federation - Vancouver Island Chapter, is pleased to host a global forum on an emerging trend in the field of coaching called "Coaching Supervision". Globally, it is becoming a recognized practice for coaches at every stage in their coaching practice to improve their personal mastery through continuous development; both personally in terms of deepening their coaching presence and awareness, and professionally in terms of competencies, ethics and standards. One of the growing trends internationally for such development is engaging in the practice of 'coaching supervision'; similar in concept to the supervision which supports many behavioral science professions. We are very excited to host this forum here on Vancouver Island, drawing international attention and global participation.
>>
>> What is Coaching Supervision?
>>
>> Coaching Supervision is described as engaging in reflective practice in order to further develop personal efficacy. It is an opportunity for coaches and facilitators to, in partnership, reflect, increase awareness of what their patterns are, clarify and explore the Coach's approach, process, energy, beliefs and in turn, the impact that these elements have on their coaching, in service of the client.  The practice of Coaching Supervision focuses solely on you the Coach and provides you with many benefits including but not limited to expansion of your coaching competencies, ethics and standards, identification of personal development edges, presence, confidence and an increase in your overall effectiveness as Coach.
>>
>> Who Are We Inviting To This Global Conversation on Coaching Supervision?
>>
>> For most of you, coaching isn't just a profession, it's a calling. Passionate about your clients and the results they produce you are keenly aware that your own development and self-awareness runs synonymous with those you work with. You are committed to continuous self-development, you thirst for expanded ways to work with your clients, you appreciate that like your own clients you too will always have your blind spots. If we've just described you, then consider this Forum as the possible next step in your Coaching evolution. You may have noticed a lot of hot chatter on the ICF Global website on this topic. Become informed and then you get to decide whether to continue with the conversation or not.
>>
>> Registration opens on March 31. Space is limited to 100 participants. You will not want to miss this exciting opportunity to be part of the first organized conversation on coaching supervision hosted in North America.
>>
>> What Does Your Registration Include?
>> *         Conversations and sessions with international guests who are globally recognized as experts in the field of Coaching Supervision
>> *         The opportunity to hear an expert panel of coaching supervisors weigh in on the benefits of this emerging practice and answer questions on how supervision is used in other parts of the world
>> *         The opportunity to collectively explore, express, question and reflect on the topic of "Coaching Supervision"
>> *         Multiple Networking opportunities with your peers and fellow coaches from around the world
>> *         Breakout sessions designed to provide you with experiential practice in "Coaching Supervision"
>> *         Increase understanding and experience how Coaching Supervision can expand your coaching services, increase your client pool and provide you with more opportunities to thrive in your practice
>> *         Access to ICF Global task force on Coaching Supervision
>> *         One ticket to our VIP Event Wine & Cheese
>> *         CCEUs for ICF Re-Credentialing purposes - to be determined
>>
>> Why is this event important to us? Why are we hosting it?
>>
>> We have an opportunity to engage in the discussion on the relevancy of coaching supervision to our practice. Royal Roads is sponsoring the event venue and it promises to be a sold out event. So far, the following have confirmed their participation and are donating their time and travel as presenters or panelists:
>> *         Pat Marum, PCC, Past Charter President (Arizona)
>> *         Janet Harvey, MCC, Past President, ICF Global (Seattle)
>> *         Damian Goldvarg, MCC, Past President, ICF Global (Los Angeles)
>> *         Colin Brett, PCC, Owner of Coaching Development and Coaching Changes (Britain)
>> *         Edna Murdoch, Coaching Supervision Academy (Britain)
>>
>> Watch for more details to come!
>>
>> We are still confirming the speakers list, collecting hand-outs that we will make available for download before the event. We will also provide schedules, maps, and the number of CCEU's available as we finalize these details. This is exciting stuff! Stay tuned!
>




-- 
1
Add a comment...

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Date: March 24, 2015 at 8:15:49 AM PDT
Subject: Coaching Supervision - Some Perspectives for External Self Employed Coaches to Consider
From: Lisa Mallett 
Hello,

I have been a successful, self-employed “single shingle” executive coach since 2002, and I keep abreast of trends and developments in our industry.  I have been closely following and researching the coaching supervision trend since July 2014, and have the following thoughts to offer – that may be of particular interest to other experienced, self-employed, independent external coaches who work under contract to various businesses and organizations.

1.  The coaching supervision “trend” is currently the subject of great debate – especially within the main professional/regulatory body for coaches, the ICF.  There is currently no real agreement on a clear definition of coaching supervision (exactly what it is and who is truly qualified to “supervise"), nor can be it clearly articulated (or demonstrated) as to how it is separate and distinct from mentor coaching, or even just highly skilled regular coaching.  

There is no research or validated information to prove that coaching supervision ensures high performance or provides additional quality assurance – with particular respect to external coaches who are independent business people/contractors (versus internal, salaried coaches, whose employers may choose to “supervise” them).
 
2.  If a contracting employer were to require contracted external coaches to undergo coaching supervision (the pro-supervision faction is out there telling employers they should only contract with supervised external coaches), there would be serious implications to consider - such as the significant economic cost for the external coach who would have to pay out of their own pocket for the service, plus forgo income as they cannot be delivering coaching services while being supervised (unlike an internal coach who is getting paid their wage while they are being supervised, and who does not have to pay anything for their own supervision).   

It would be an extraordinarily onerous and expensive burden to place on contracted external coaches, without any visible or reportable gain for the contracting employer.  The ICF Coaching Supervision Phase 1 Task Force recommended between 18 to 24 hours of coaching supervision per year.  At a (very low) estimated cost of $250.00 USD per hour for supervision, that would add overhead costs to your business of between $4,500.00 to $6,000.00 per year.  Add in forgone income and the net business cost easily doubles.  Would you have the time or funds left to pursue any other Continuing Professional Development each year – CPD that you may prefer far more than just talking to one coach supervisor all year?

3.  Coaching confidentiality means there is no way of knowing, measuring, or reporting on whether or not coaching supervision provides additional quality assurance to the employer re: contracted external coaches' skills and expertise.  There would not be any key performance indicators (KPIs) or performance measures, beyond the external coach providing basic proof they are actively engaging in coaching supervision. 
  
4.  There is dissension and turmoil in the coaching industry (and ICF) currently – with factions apparently vying both for and against coaching supervision: 
 
The “pro” coaching supervision faction openly references the "marketing niche," lucrative "revenue opportunities,” “enormous sales volume” and “manifold markets,” that would be created if coaching supervision was made a requirement for the thousands of current and future ICF-accredited coaches (tuition/training fees from coaches becoming supervisors, and then coaches supervising other coaches).  This industry trend appears driven less by quality assurance concerns, and more by revenue generation concerns.
 
The “anti” mandatory coaching supervision faction is not against supervision per se, but thinks there should be a choice as to whether or not to undergo supervision as part of your ongoing professional development (the ICF already requires 40 hours of ICF-approved training and development for ICF credential renewal every 3 years).  Many credentialed coaches regularly participate in peer-to-peer consultation and have a strong network that provides ‘critical friendship’ and “coach consultation” as needed.
 
5.  I personally maintain that coaching supervision is a solution in search of a problem, and that problem is one of revenue generation in the industry.  If this is not true, someone has yet to make a compelling case by clearly explaining the problem(s) that only the modality of coaching supervision can adequately address and solve.

Best regards,

Lisa Mallett, PCC
Executive Strategist & Leadership Consultant, Recalibrate.com
1
Add a comment...
Have her in circles
129 people
Stephanie York's profile photo
Bonnie Hagemann's profile photo
Harry Glantz's profile photo
Martin Malden's profile photo
Patrick Reilly's profile photo
Libby Gill's profile photo
People Development Network's profile photo
Beth Masterman's profile photo
Blue Chip Coaching's profile photo

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Coaching Supervision, A Tool or a Mandate?
By CB Bowman, MBA, MCEC, BCC, CMC
March 29, 2015

Here is a radical  question, is “coaching supervision” much to do about something, or much to do about nothing with regard to its possible infestation  into coaching in the United States? 

The concept of coaching supervision is swimming its way to the U.S. from European waters, where by law it is mandatory.  The law requires that, executive coaches have  coaching supervision.

What is “Coaching Supervision”?  According to the Coaching Supervision Academy, coaching supervision will provide coaches with the following http://coachingsupervisionacademy.com/supervision/what-is-coaching-supervision/:
  Clear Contracting  – multi-party contracting where appropriate.
  Ensuring that standards and ethics are maintained.
  Establishing good boundaries.
  Enhancing reflectivity – working with content and process.
  Attending to the Coach’s Personal Development. 
  Creating the Working Alliance.
  Deepening Coaching Presence.
  Building the Internal Supervisor.
  Offering new perspectives to the coach.
  Increasing the coach’s interventions and tools.
  Being sensitive to the coach’s Learning and Coaching Style.
  Teaching about Coaching Psychology.
  Working with Parallel Process.
  Developing systemic thinking.
  Giving constructive feedback.
  Providing the coach with new tools.
  Creating experiments through which the coach can learn.
  Offering educative and restorative support to the coach.
  Working systemically – with coach, client and the wider field.
  Opening up new areas of competence for the coach.

It occurs to me that any Executive Coach who cares about their profession consistently ensures that the above actions take place as part of their annual professional development criteria; much of this occurs through being a member of a trade association. In fact, in many fields the above list is the reason that professionals belong to a minimum of two associations annually. 

There are many non-supporters of coaching supervision in the United States, as well as some supporters. It seems, though, that more and more of the non-supporters are raising their hands against this concept, especially as the discussion becomes more vocal and heated. 

This is probably due to the fact that in United States we are kindly referred to as the as the non-confrontational giant, except when freedoms are threatened. Americans also are known for their ability to strike back, strike hard, and strike accurately when their freedom is questioned or jeopardized. 

This surely appears to be the case here, especially for veteran Executive Coaches, when the freedom of self-determining how they will maintain the quality of their professionalism is at risk. 
It is clear that if given a choice verses a fait accompli of requiring the incorporation of this new aspect of coaching requirements into their professional standing, coaches might experience it as less of an infringement on their freedom or sense of dignity.

Having said all this, there may be a greater opportunity amongst us who actually do care about the quality of our work and the quality of  our profession. I present to you an option that lays within our ability to move out of the role of Executive Coach and  move into the space of Corporate Executive Coach; however, let’s not stop there. I also present to you the opportunity to move from Corporate Executive Coach to Enterprise Business Partner―which is not the same as a Business Coach or a Business Consultant. 

My personal thought is that now is the time to focus our attention on how to become a Enterprise Business Partner to our clients. If we agree that the Corporate Executive Coach is quite different than the Executive Coach in that the Corporate Executive Coach has to walk the fine line between coaching and consulting—which is something that’s not necessarily taught or embraced traditionally by those involved with Executive Coaching, then it gives us the opportunity to incorporate a paradigm shift by presenting ourselves as business partners. 

I imagine that I will receive a great deal of negative responses from those who are traditionalists. That is, before they really take a close look at why the likes of Marshall Goldsmith, Gary Ranker, John Maxwell, Mike Myatt and Johanna Rothman are successful— they are business partners to their clients. 

In truth there really is no need to object; what is being presented is simply a conceptual thought of a different color. It states, if we want to be respected at a different level than we are currently, for the tremendous work that we do, perhaps it’s time to elevate how we are perceived in the boardroom. If we want to move from simply being see as a remedial solution to performance behavior concerns then we need to present ourselves as an integral part of our client’s business.

How many of us can identify the challenges that are currently in play for the CXO’s as related to human capital? Basically there are three areas, as we are now in the predicted era of  the war-on-talent. This is the result of retiring baby boomers, the recent recession, business growth in countries to which we have outsourced, and zero population growth. These three things are called RRI:
Recruitment
Retention
Investment Dollars
The critical question is, “How do we get to the boardroom to make a difference in these areas?” Once we figure out the answer, executive coaching will elevate itself from the arena of being depicted as the “Wild Wild West” by Harvard Business Review to the level of respect that we so much desire and deserve. The question of coaching supervision may well become a moot point.

Is it possible that the focus on coaching supervision provides a golden opportunity to expand our vision to areas that will elevate us and where coaching supervision will become just a tool and not a raison d'être or discourse? 
1
Add a comment...

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Lisa Mallett 
12:37 PM (3 hours ago)
Reply
to CB 
See below for Teri’s approval to post her note on Google+.

Lisa

Lisa Mallett, PCC
Executive Strategist & Leadership Consultant, Recalibrate.com
email: lisa@recalibrate.com 
website: www.recalibrate.com

From: Teri-E Belf 
Reply-To: 
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 8:48 AM
To: Lisa Mallett PCC 
Subject: Re: Coaching Supervision - Some Perspectives for External Self Employed Coaches to Consider

Yes it is fine if you post it on the Google+ site. 

A bit of history that might be relevant. Share if you wish.

In 1996 (pre-ICF as a world-wide coach organization, when it was only for graduates of Coach U), I created and held the first world-wide Coaching Symposium (The Art and Science of Coaching) and met many coaches in Europe (Switzerland, Netherlands, UK...) who were psychologists and also called themselves coaches. When we discussed what they did I was surprised to learn that they held the same underlying philosophy and practice for psychology and coaching. We were doing the same thing and believed in the same values and principles. VERY different from what we called psychology in 
the US.

Many coaches in the US fear supervision because the word links us to that which is familiar in the US, such as third-party insurance and licensing. For whatever reason we (US) approach this conversation through a fear-based lens and that will never produce a long-term satisfactory outcome. Wouldn't we coach our clients to consider the ramifications of holding on to a fear-based perspective?

It is different in Europe. To move ahead with this conversation we might speak with colleagues and learn about coaching outside our US worldview. 
Note: My training in coaching came from the UK, a program that began in 1981  trained me in 1987. 

I am saddened by what the US has done to the purity of what we initially created. Consultants have polluted our profession with assessments. Psychologists have been threatened by coaching because we use some of the same words, although we mean different things. For example, one of my pet peeves is to call our work a 'business', not a 'practice', and to refer to time spent as 'meetings', not 'sessions'. I have been committed to that language since 1987 and train all those I train to use these words to differentiate us from what we call psychology in the US. Others laugh at me and say, what the difference? We are now learning what the difference might be.

respectfully,
TEri-E



On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Lisa Mallett <lisa@recalibrate.com> wrote:
Hi Teri,

Your note is beautifully written and heartfelt. I shared it with CB Bowman (as she was not cc’d on that particular distribution list), and she asked me to find out if you would be agreeable to her posting it on the new Google+ site she has created for dialogue on coaching supervision?

I have cc’d CB on this e-mail so you can respond to her directly.

Thank you for weighing in and reminding everyone of the essence of what it is we’re trying to accomplish in our work.

As an aside, I can try to answer your question as to why the distribution list is mainly North American coaches.  It is because we believe North American coaches have been quite blind and deaf to the growing demands and pressure from European coaching supervisors and trainers (EMCC , AOCS and ANSE etc), and Australasian coaching supervisors and trainers (who headed the first ICF task force on coaching supervision with no transparency, and which recommended coaching supervision be required for ICF credentialing within 3 years), who are seeking a disproportionate share of voice in coaching, and greater share/control of the coaching marketplace.   

If you are interested in learning more, I am happy to share the extensive research I have done that proves there is a clear agenda for European and Australian coach psychologists/psychotherapists to take back coaching into the realm of counseling, with therapeutic modalities such as supervision required.  This will eventually lead to regulation and control over who, and how many, get to enter the profession.

Thanks again for expressing your thoughts.  I know you speak for many others.

Lisa
 
Lisa Mallett, PCC
Executive Strategist & Leadership Consultant, Recalibrate.com
email: lisa@recalibrate.com 
website: www.recalibrate.com

 


Subject: Re: Coaching Supervision - Some Perspectives for External Self Employed Coaches to Consider

My turn. In my profession, coaching, we value growth and development. That is why we created the profession: to increase client awareness and increase client responsibility (the ability to respond to that awareness). We hold our clients accountable for taking action. We also firmly believe that clients have their own answers. We value serving the whole client because every new perception or learning impacts the entire person...and surroundings…and planet.
 
Many of you were there with me when we created our profession.
 
As coaches we have to mirror that which we believe for our clients, valuing growth and acknowledging inner wisdom, being personally accountable for our choices and actions, remembering the holistic nature of living. If we are not in alignment and modeling what we believe for our clients, we are not effective coaches.
 
I engage in so much learning about myself (and my ability to increase and demonstrate coaching competency each year), I cannot count how many hours. I read, write, discuss with colleagues and students, attend and deliver workshops, webinars, etc. As a coach I am aware of what I need and appreciate the feedback from colleagues all over the world who point out my blind spots. My whole life is committed to learning.
 
Am I atypical of coaches? I think not. I    h o p e    not.
 
I resent someone regulating how much learning I should have on what topic or with whom. It is in my bones and my chosen profession to continue learning.  It is inherent in my soul to want to be better at who I am and what I do.  (Isn’t that the essence of coaching?) Trust me to be a responsible as a person and coach to seek out and engage in learning to improve myself as a coach. I shall continue learning whether you regulate me or not.
 
In conclusion, language is so very important, I implore the ultimate decision-makers to carefully choose and define your words and requirements as you move to evolve our profession, my profession.

Also I am curious why this list has so many North American coaches and does not include coaching leaders I know in other parts of the globe.

Thank you for listening and regards to all,
Teri-E

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Lisa Mallett <lisa@recalibrate.com> wrote:
Hello,

I have been a successful, self-employed “single shingle” executive coach since 2002, and I keep abreast of trends and developments in our industry.  I have been closely following and researching the coaching supervision trend since July 2014, and have the following thoughts to offer – that may be of particular interest to other experienced, self-employed, independent external coaches who work under contract to various businesses and organizations.

1.  The coaching supervision “trend” is currently the subject of great debate – especially within the main professional/regulatory body for coaches, the ICF.  There is currently no real agreement on a clear definition of coaching supervision (exactly what it is and who is truly qualified to “supervise"), nor can be it clearly articulated (or demonstrated) as to how it is separate and distinct from mentor coaching, or even just highly skilled regular coaching.  

There is no research or validated information to prove that coaching supervision ensures high performance or provides additional quality assurance – with particular respect to external coaches who are independent business people/contractors (versus internal, salaried coaches, whose employers may choose to “supervise” them).
 
2.  If a contracting employer were to require contracted external coaches to undergo coaching supervision (the pro-supervision faction is out there telling employers they should only contract with supervised external coaches), there would be serious implications to consider - such as the significant economic cost for the external coach who would have to pay out of their own pocket for the service, plus forgo income as they cannot be delivering coaching services while being supervised (unlike an internal coach who is getting paid their wage while they are being supervised, and who does not have to pay anything for their own supervision).   

It would be an extraordinarily onerous and expensive burden to place on contracted external coaches, without any visible or reportable gain for the contracting employer.  The ICF Coaching Supervision Phase 1 Task Force recommended between 18 to 24 hours of coaching supervision per year.  At a (very low) estimated cost of $250.00 USD per hour for supervision, that would add overhead costs to your business of between $4,500.00 to $6,000.00 per year.  Add in forgone income and the net business cost easily doubles.  Would you have the time or funds left to pursue any other Continuing Professional Development each year – CPD that you may prefer far more than just talking to one coach supervisor all year?

3.  Coaching confidentiality means there is no way of knowing, measuring, or reporting on whether or not coaching supervision provides additional quality assurance to the employer re: contracted external coaches' skills and expertise.  There would not be any key performance indicators (KPIs) or performance measures, beyond the external coach providing basic proof they are actively engaging in coaching supervision. 
  
4.  There is dissension and turmoil in the coaching industry (and ICF) currently – with factions apparently vying both for and against coaching supervision: 
 
The “pro” coaching supervision faction openly references the "marketing niche," lucrative "revenue opportunities,” “enormous sales volume” and “manifold markets,” that would be created if coaching supervision was made a requirement for the thousands of current and future ICF-accredited coaches (tuition/training fees from coaches becoming supervisors, and then coaches supervising other coaches).  This industry trend appears driven less by quality assurance concerns, and more by revenue generation concerns.
 
The “anti” mandatory coaching supervision faction is not against supervision per se, but thinks there should be a choice as to whether or not to undergo supervision as part of your ongoing professional development (the ICF already requires 40 hours of ICF-approved training and development for ICF credential renewal every 3 years).  Many credentialed coaches regularly participate in peer-to-peer consultation and have a strong network that provides ‘critical friendship’ and “coach consultation” as needed.
 
5.  I personally maintain that coaching supervision is a solution in search of a problem, and that problem is one of revenue generation in the industry.  If this is not true, someone has yet to make a compelling case by clearly explaining the problem(s) that only the modality of coaching supervision can adequately address and solve.

Best regards,

Lisa Mallett, PCC
Executive Strategist & Leadership Consultant, Recalibrate.com
email: lisa@recalibrate.com 
website: www.recalibrate.com




From: Vikki Brock <coach@vikkibrock.com>
Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 6:51 PM
To: Marilyn O'Hearne <marilyn@marilynoh.com>, Mary Ann Soule <touchstone@masoule.com>, Matilda Gregersdotter <matilda@evolvia.org>, Meryl Moritz <merylmoritzresources@gmail.com>, Michael Stratford <yokoach@aol.com>, Micki McMillan <micki@bluemesagroup.com>, Minx Boron <minx@coachminx.com>, Miriam Reiss <miriam@spiritedmarketing.com>, Mirjam van Roon <mvanroon@cobaltcoaching.com>, Molly Gordon <gordon@shaboominc.com>, Pam Mclean <pam.mclean@hudsoninstitute.com>, Pat Barlow <pat@bluemesagroup.com>, Pat White <results@patwhitecoach.com>, Pat Williams <pat@drpatwilliams.com>, Paulette Rao <paulette@truenorthresources.com>, Pauline Willis <Pauline.willis@lauriate.com>, Peter Redding <Peter@CoachForLife.com>, Peter Szabo <Pauline.willis@lauriate.com>, Phillip Sandhal <Phillip@TeamDiagnostic.com>, Rey Carr <rcarr@islandnet.com>, Rick Tamlyn <rick@itsallmadeup.com>, Russ Long <rlong@changeinnovations.com>, Sara Arbel <sara@saraarbel.com>, Sherry Lowry <sherry@sherrylowry.com>, Siobhan Murphy <siobhan@thequestconnection.com>, Sonia Sinisterra <ssinisterra@chi.com.co>, Steve Mitten <scmitten@shaw.ca>, Susan Sussman <Susan@americoach.org>, Suzi Pomerantz <suzi@innovativeleader.com>, Svetlana Chumakova <svetlana@coacha.ru>, Sylva Leduc <sylvaleduc@gmail.com>,"Teresa J. Pool" <teresa@transitionsforbusiness.com>, Teri-E Belf <coach@belf.org>, Terrie Lupberger <terrie.lupberger@gmail.com>, Tina Elliott <tina@synergycoaching.org>, Tracy Stevens <Tracy@TLSassociates.com>, Val Williams <val@valwilliams.com>, Vicki Escude <vicki@excellentcoach.com>, Winston Connor <winston@coachingdynamics.com>,"Wynne W. Miller" <wynne@win-coaching.com>, Zoran Todorvich <zoran@tnmcoaching.com>, Lisa Mallett PCC <lisa@recalibrate.com>, Magdalena Mook <magda.mook@coachfederation.org>
Subject: Coaching Supervision - Issue Summary and Magda response

The bullet points summarizing the crux of the issue as I see it are:

Inappropriateness of supervision practices that apply in the clinical psychology area being applied to coaching. Supervision in most fields means the supervisor assumes legal responsibility, generally for aspiring professionals to get their license.   The lack of transparency at the ICF in two Coaching Supervision “task force” undertakings (no terms of reference, no disclosure of task force membership) with apparent involvement and influence coming from many individuals/organizations with vested financial interests in coaching supervision.
Erosion/blurring of the important boundary/distinctions the ICF has historically formed around the type of coaching [and client base] that its coaches work with (different from other forms of practice such as psychotherapy and clinical psychology).
Places the coaching industry at risk of broad government intervention via increased regulation and possible licensure.
Creates onerous and expensive burdens for all coaches, especially for those coaches who are self-employed, independent business people who would have to pay for the cost of their own supervision (ICF Coaching Supervision Task Force #1 recommended between 18 and 24 hours of supervision annually for all coaches); and,
Ultimately control the coaching industry through effecting changes that could eventually limit the supply of coaching professionals, thereby creating higher incomes for those who influence and control both how many, and who, would be allowed to enter the profession.

The movement toward coaching supervision has been spearheaded by European and Australian coaches who come from a psychology/psychotherapy background, and seek to bring this clinical supervision modality and control to coaching.

We want to keep the defined boundaries between coaching and therapeutic disciplines by:     
Maintaining the traditional inclusive definition of coach mentoring
Recognize the value of critical friendship also known as peer-to-peer coaching or coach consultation
Eliminate or restrict any future coaching supervision requirements to training and credential purposes only (the ICF website stipulates that ICF has reserved the option of making supervision a requirement in the future).
Please send me additional comments and/or corrections you might have (without hitting reply all).


Magda responded about the webpage on Friday, however no committee or task force member names were included.  I responded that our original request included the names of individual ICF members were were on committees and task forces.  I am awaiting her reply.

From Magda:  "And the Workgroup page is up – thank you for this suggestion, I think it is a great addition. As I said before, all comments may be directed to the staff liaison for any of these groups. Here’s the link to the page: http://coachfederation.org/about/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=3855&navItemNumber=3856"

 Vikki






-- 
Breathe in and Relax - a retreat with Wisdom, Coaching and Spirit
Plan ahead after the winter doldrums
Go on a retreat end March, 2011
details at www.Wrinklewisdom.com



Teri-E Belf, the first M.C.C.
Director, Coach, Coach Mentor and Coach Trainer
Success Unlimited Network®, LLC
703-716-8374 (USA East Coast)
coach@belf.org
www.successunlimitednet.com -- about coaching, coach mentoring and accredited coach training and certification
www.belfcoach.com -- about me
www.WrinkleWisdom.com -- about workshops




-- 


 UPCOMING WOMEN'S RETREAT - The Adventure of BE-coming. April 10-13, 2015 in MD
ask me for more details.
                                                   
1
Add a comment...

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 

Barbara Luther, MCC via bounce.secureserver.net 
6:56 PM (8 hours ago)
Reply
to Magdalena, CB, Paulette, Terrence, Vikki, Jeffrey, Jan, Margie, Alix, David, Micki, Lyn, Linda, Judy, Helene, Adria, Tina, Fran, Meryl, Laura, Damian, Cynthia, Sylva, Carly, Michael 
Hi, Magda,

I went to this blog, thinking it would be an open conversation but the Name of the blog is:  The Case FOR Coaching Supervision.  How is that an open forum on the topic?  Here's another example of why it feels like this is a done deal with ICF.

I'm not comfortable stepping into a blog that's clearly labeled as opposing my perspective.  It certainly does not feel inviting or open.

Warmly,

Barbara
1
Add a comment...

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 
CB Bowman <cb@acec-website.org>
2:55 AM (0 minutes ago)
Reply
to ...., bcc: J...
Hi Vikki,  re our conversation this evening a "G+ Community" has been set up for the "Coaching Supervision" discussion and it is officially open. All 100 coaches on your list have been invited to participate using this new format. 
Note:
Additional coaches may also join, and coaches can self opt out:
Additionally,I believe all of the email conversations have been transferred over
This is the location for the new forum: https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/105388013720627906134
The name of the community is "Coaching Supervision"
The Community Description is: 
This is a community open to coaching practitioners who wish to contribute to the dialogue regarding coaching supervision in the United States: Coaches, Executive Coaches, Members of ICF, Non members of ICF
as a result of moving the conversation the group will no longer be restricted in accommodating the amount of email messages that can be sent at one time.
Colleagues please let me know if you have not received your invitations.
BTW I am BCC'ing this message to all, in order to manage the long list of participants.

Vikki, as a member of ACEC, please let me know if you would like support in setting up a LinkedIn group for this discussion. It would be separate from the other groups i.e., Corporate Executive Coaches, ACEC members only and others. 
However, I recommend just using G+ for now, so as to not make this a flavor-of-the-month, but rather a discussion for those who are serious in their interest, but it is your decision.

Sincerely CB
Coaching Supervision
The Debate for the United States
View community
1
Add a comment...

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 
CB Bowman 
1:31 PM (12 hours ago)
Reply
to Terrence, Vikki, Jeffrey, Jan, Margie, Alix, David, Micki, Lyn, Linda, Barbara, Judy, Helene, Adria, Tina, Fran, Meryl, Laura, Damian, Cynthia, Sylva, Carly, Michael, Lee, Linda 
Hi Terry,
What a delight to hear from you.
It would be exciting to continue the conversation we started in November last year about coaching supervision and to bring you into this dialogue. From an academic perspective, it would be interesting to find out if you still support coaching supervision and to what degree if you do, i.e. can you confirm that it will be part of your program at Columbia and if yes to what degree? 
However, since this conversation has been unfolding for quite some time I would recommend that you speak to both Vikki who opened the dialogue and has been kindly keeping us up to date; and myself regarding the reference to Columbia. This verses trying to bring you up to date by email. 

My schedule is packed today but I will reach out to you in the next day or two ...happy to have you involved.
Best CB
----------------------------------------
Maltbia, Terrence via 
10:10 AM (15 hours ago)
Reply
to CB, Vikki, Jeffrey, Jan, Margie, Alix, David, Micki, Lyn, Linda, Barbara, Judy, Helene, Adria, Tina, Fran, Meryl, Laura, Damian, Cynthia, Sylva, Carly, Michael, Lee, Linda 
Hello CB (and others copied here), 

I was recently made aware of what appears to be a lively conversation regarding coach/coaching supervision. I realize that I'm entering this conversation in the mist of the engagement, and as a result, most likely I'm missing some important contextual data, yet wanted to enter given a specific reference to a coaching program here @ Columbia University? 

Please see my comments below, CB (and others), in the context of a communication that was sent to Ray and Vikki on March 18th: 

___________________________

Dear Ray and Vikki,

As a member of ICF, I had the same reaction when I read the information about the program. I was quite concerned about how the dialogue we were/are having fit into the upcoming program or if the decision about coaching supervision was a fait accompli, as it appears to be with Columbia University's Executive Coaching program [TEM: CB, as the Faculty Director of Columbia's Coaching Program, I would like to better understand the comment, in terms of its source, origins and meaning? Please advise... once I hear back from you, I can try to clarify Columbia University official position on coach supervision. I can share a "headline" that I'm not sure "a fait accompli," if I understand the term, is appropriate given our current stance and exploration on this topic. Thus, I'm interests in learning more about the source and meaning of the reference made here? Again, I'd be happy to share Columbia University's current thinking on the topic and where we are in our decision process - yet I want to ensure that are position is being communicated accurately by you, and potentially others. I think this a forum for aligning our intent and future plans in a way that reflects Columbia's true position]

In my query to Magda on another occasions I find her very willing to hear opposing view points. [TEM: this has been my experience with Magda, and others ICF leaders I've interacted with...]

The structure for ICF allows for incredible autonomy of the chapters. Sometimes the result can be the type of situation we are now faced with, where one chapter runs with the ball, that ball develops a ground swell, and before you know it, it becomes a de facto policy.  As a de facto policy it tends to become embedded into a belief system which is difficult to stop from becoming an official policy. [TEM: CB what is the "headline" issue, in which you, and potentially others are having with the current status of coach supervision within the ICF community, and/or beyond? The big issue, if you will, is not clear to me... please advise..]

I wonder if it is to late for a inclusive decision/ discussion and we are left with a yes or no decision? [TEM: what is our collective understanding of the "decisions" that have been made regarding supervision, and importantly those yet to be made? Please advise...]

CB, I look forward to hearing your replies to my inquires, and await the perspectives from others in this, clearly emerging topic, for which there is no shortage of points of view. 

Best Regards, 

Maltbia (Terry)

Concerned CB
-- 
Dr. Terrence E. Maltbia
Senior Lecturer, Adult Learning and Leadership Programs
Department of Organization and Leadership
Faculty Director, Columbia Coaching Certification Program
Department of Organization and Leadership
Teachers College, Columbia University

 
1
Add a comment...

CB Bowman
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Vikki Brock via bounce.secureserver.net 
Mar 23 (1 day ago)
Reply
to ...
The bullet points summarizing the crux of the issue as I see it are:

Inappropriateness of supervision practices that apply in the clinical psychology area being applied to coaching. Supervision in most fields means the supervisor assumes legal responsibility, generally for aspiring professionals to get their license.   The lack of transparency at the ICF in two Coaching Supervision “task force” undertakings (no terms of reference, no disclosure of task force membership) with apparent involvement and influence coming from many individuals/organizations with vested financial interests in coaching supervision.
Erosion/blurring of the important boundary/distinctions the ICF has historically formed around the type of coaching [and client base] that its coaches work with (different from other forms of practice such as psychotherapy and clinical psychology).
Places the coaching industry at risk of broad government intervention via increased regulation and possible licensure.
Creates onerous and expensive burdens for all coaches, especially for those coaches who are self-employed, independent business people who would have to pay for the cost of their own supervision (ICF Coaching Supervision Task Force #1 recommended between 18 and 24 hours of supervision annually for all coaches); and,
Ultimately control the coaching industry through effecting changes that could eventually limit the supply of coaching professionals, thereby creating higher incomes for those who influence and control both how many, and who, would be allowed to enter the profession.

The movement toward coaching supervision has been spearheaded by European and Australian coaches who come from a psychology/psychotherapy background, and seek to bring this clinical supervision modality and control to coaching.

We want to keep the defined boundaries between coaching and therapeutic disciplines by:     
Maintaining the traditional inclusive definition of coach mentoring
Recognize the value of critical friendship also known as peer-to-peer coaching or coach consultation
Eliminate or restrict any future coaching supervision requirements to training and credential purposes only (the ICF website stipulates that ICF has reserved the option of making supervision a requirement in the future).
Please send me additional comments and/or corrections you might have (without hitting reply all).


Magda responded about the webpage on Friday, however no committee or task force member names were included.  I responded that our original request included the names of individual ICF members were were on committees and task forces.  I am awaiting her reply.

From Magda:  "And the Workgroup page is up – thank you for this suggestion, I think it is a great addition. As I said before, all comments may be directed to the staff liaison for any of these groups. Here’s the link to the page: http://coachfederation.org/about/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=3855&navItemNumber=3856"

 Vikki
1
Add a comment...
People
Have her in circles
129 people
Stephanie York's profile photo
Bonnie Hagemann's profile photo
Harry Glantz's profile photo
Martin Malden's profile photo
Patrick Reilly's profile photo
Libby Gill's profile photo
People Development Network's profile photo
Beth Masterman's profile photo
Blue Chip Coaching's profile photo
Work
Occupation
Corporate Executive Coach
Skills
Executive Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Story
Tagline
"The answer is only the beginning of the question™"CB Bowman
Introduction
Specialist in Executive Branding©, Executive PTSD and Leadership, Change & Transition
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP, LLC
Bragging rights
CEO of the Association of Corporate Executive Coaches
Basic Information
Gender
Female
Looking for
Networking