Mechanisms that we designed to improve coaching have accidentally removed some of what makes it powerful

Over the last two to three decades, the executive coaching industry has grown exponentially and has progressed from primarily a remedial activity for underperforming executives to a vital way to develop performance at all levels within organisations.  While coaching has its roots in the medical profession, it is not bound in the same way by its ethics and standards. Accredited training programmes therefore became a way to introduce some quality control in the profession, with certification giving our clients peace of mind and offering us an optional advantage amongst the competition¹.

There was a bit of a scramble for domination of the accreditation market, but thankfully this has now broadly rationalised into three main bodies: the EMCC, ICF and AC.  And overall, I think it’s hugely important that such rigour exists. The title ‘coach’ isn’t protected, so we need a way to articulate the difference between someone who woke up one morning and fancied a career change, and someone who has focused on their own development, has invested time in learning their craft and works within appropriate ethical boundaries.

But with that professionalisation comes a risk.  While clearly not all coach training is created equal, by standardising the way that coaching is assessed and therefore taught, has the broader industry in fact started to standardise coaches too?  I briefly touch on why this might not be helpful for our clients in this article on LinkedIn, and I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful for us, either.

Each of the EMCC, AC and ICF has a documented competency framework that aims to describe differing levels of professional expertise for coaches. While the detail within is different, broadly speaking they each look at the coach’s self-awareness and development; how the coach interacts with the client; and how the coach manages and evaluates the assignment, all within an ethical framework.

It is clearly important that coaches are aware of and can manage all these aspects, whether they choose to become accredited with one of these professional bodies or not. But if we get too hung up on the detail of such frameworks, it surely detracts from the work we’re doing with our clients.

I would far rather – even in an observed coaching session – be fully present with my client rather than worrying, “am I ‘facilitating insight’ here, like it says I should in EMCC capability indicator 88 or am I merely ‘raising awareness’ and thereby only demonstrating capability indicator 55?”. That sounds absurd. But I have recently seen a long discussion on LinkedIn focused solely on how to demonstrate just one of the ICF’s 68 sub-competencies (and bear in mind each of these sub-competencies has different performance expectations for each of their three levels of accreditation).  Erik de Haan has also recently published research² that analyses over 20 micro-behaviours demonstrated by coaches in the first 20 minutes of a coaching session, to further inform effective coach development.

I’m left feeling that in this relentless pursuit of defining what good looks like, the profession risks engineering a complexity we don’t need. Those frameworks that set out to standardise how our skill is measured have started to define who we are rather than how effectively we work.  We took the greatness of the coaches who went before us and fitted their classifiable skills neatly into boxes, so we could train others to be classified in the same way. And in doing so, we reduced the richness and importance of our individual experience, values and presence to what aligns with the scope of a framework.

And this is a paradox.

The mechanisms that we designed to improve coaching have accidentally removed some of what makes it powerful. If we progress further down this path, the profession will produce more of what it can easily categorise, micro-behaviours and all, and replicate it through training, accreditation, re-accreditation and ever more granular descriptions of the sort of coach we are told we should become and how we will be measured. The more the system demands it, the more we are likely to become complicit in it.  We won’t want to be penalised for straying from a framework – even if that might be a better call for our clients – and we will become homogenous.

If this made us more effective, the trade-off might be worth it. But deep down do you consider your coaching to be valuable because of these frameworks, or in spite of them?

If we adhere so strictly to these industry-approved frameworks that we are reticent to bring our individuality to our clients, we become replaceable.  We could replace each other, or we could be replaced by technology. Focusing on categorising and sub-categorising our competencies and behaviours risks losing sight of our unique presence, even when we are still coaching human to human. We are not helping our clients by doing this. We are protecting our own and our industry’s self-image at the expense of what our clients truly need.

I’m not advocating that we abandon the rigour that has enabled the profession to become credible: quality remains important, ongoing development is valuable and regular supervision is crucial. But the frameworks that got us here now risk mistaking standardised, measurable behaviour for excellence.  And attempting to break coaching down into ever smaller components to be evaluated with increasing precision is counter-productive.

So, what should we do?

We need to ensure that our self-reflection is focused on the right areas. Not merely whether we are performing against a checklist, but how we address the more uncomfortable elements of our work – our biases, our blind spots, the effect we have on our clients. The better we are able to look at ourselves and interpret our experience, values and presence in the context of the work that we now do, the more we are likely to make a real impact with that work. And that self-awareness needs to include not just what are bringing to the coaching relationship, but what we are not.

That will help us to answer the question of how we better define coaching brilliance without removing individuality; how we articulate the essence of what we bring. And how can we ensure the profession recognises it … without reducing it to another codified sub-competency.

1. The ICF estimates that the number of ‘coach practitioners’ globally doubled between 2016 and 2025.
   International Coaching Federation (ICF) (2025) ICF Global Coaching Study 2025. Available at: https://coachingfederation.org/resources/research/global-coaching-study/ (Accessed: 13 May 2026)
2. Ianiro-Dahm, P. M. and de Haan, E. (2026) ‘Creating high-quality coaching conversations: a video-based analysis of executive coach behaviour in initial coach–client interactions’, Human Resource Development International, 29(2), pp. 335–367

About Jo Minns

A seasoned HR professional and business psychologist with 25+ years’ cross-sector experience, Jo Minns pursues a portfolio career encompassing executive coaching, interim HR director and change management roles, and consultancy projects. Jo graduated from the Meyler Campbell Mastered programme in 2017 (and the Unlimited programme in 2023) and specialises in working with individuals and teams to bridge the gap between their current performance and their potential. Alongside her work, Jo is currently writing a book, “The Honest Coach: influence, power and the advantage of being human”, which aims to encourage experienced coaches to think about what coaching means for them, and how to use the breadth and depth of their own experience to stand out from the coaching crowd in an increasingly saturated market.