Statutory Regulation of Coaching: The Pros and Cons.

On 5th November 2024, the Association for Coaching (AC) held a debate on arguments for and against Statutory Regulation of Coaching. Hetty Einzig and James Bridgeman hosted the event with some volunteer facilitators for the breakout room discussions that followed. As an attendee and also a facilitator, here's my summary, based on my hand crafted notes, and, apart from summary images, without any processing through AI or other application, of what was debated. It is not meant to be a complete or absolute representation of all the content expressed in the debate and yet I feel it captures the spirit of what was discussed.

The Case For Regulation

Four speakers argued for implementation of regulation.

Pamela Larde, Ph.D. emphasised importance of regulation being centred on Alignment. I shared in the chat that Alignment techniques include sufficient diversity of Calibration and 'Collimation' that result in Coherence and Congruence which, for regulation, has to be useful, agile, sustainable and enforceable.

Rita Symons discussed the rise of Neurodiverse Coaches as well as harm brought about by male coaches demonstrating sexual discrimination. She expressed Regulation needs to speak to Balance and Equilibrium. It's not about fixed rules, a coaching paradigm or qualifications but self-work and ethical practice.

Naysan Firoozmand BSc MSc CPsychol then shared how regulation is necessary for safety, integrity and future growth of coaching. An unregulated community is a challenge, especially where many clients approach coaches around personal issues. Oversight ensures coaches are ethical, credible and show accountability. Regulation isn't about control, the focus is on ethics and mitigating risks. Regulation enables coaches to stand out. Regulation will build credibility for coaches and ensure there is a pathway for clients experiencing harm to have some redress.

James Bridgeman shared the perspective of Geoffrey Abbott PhD . Regulation needs to be a 'Soft System' management rather than a 'Hard System' that fosters strict over-regulation. Accreditation is an important aspect of this. Legal frameworks are part of the mix of governance. Training programs and governance that seduce coaches into an ethical self-regulation 'strange attractor' would need to be fostered.

Summary Image by napkin.ai

The Case Against Regulation

Four speakers presented their case against the call for regulation.

Dr Stanley Arumugam argued against the rigid regulation of the coaching profession. Regulation might appear a form of quality assurance but it might go against the connective elements of coaching. Diversity of clients requires diversity of practices that must be conserved, something that regulation might compromise, making coaching a luxury few might be able to afford. This in turn could affect innovation and flexibility converging to a focus on prescribed methods and models of practice. Regulation may shift focus from connection with clients to excessive focus on compliance, a key issue in coaching based on indigenous forms of wisdom.

Linda Aspey highlighted that regulation can sometimes focus on fixing issues after they have arisen. She suggested we need to look 'upstream' and ask how much focus is there on morality, ethics and CPD. Regulation doesn't guarantee excellence, only that you might find fault. Psychotherapy and Counselling don't have regulation -they have had a 24% increase in complaints -there is much that needs reviewing. What about free coaching -should that be regulated? Coaching is a fluid label -so what is being regulated? We have an existential crisis we need to redress.

Jeffrey Hull, Ph.D. BCC , as a licensed psychologist and having experience with regulation, said a challenge is linguistics. As a label, Regulation infers reference to the government or state law. It is a frustrating, questionable and bureaucratic process. People who define such state regulations are often civil servants and not necessarily qualified or experienced to draft regulation policies. Many people choose professions where such red tape can be avoided. Yoga is another discipline where many called for regulation -a key obstacle was defining what Yoga was. Was it a physical practice, a spiritual pursuit? The regulators were more focussed on harm and injury in gyms and classes. Bureaucracy doesn't guarantee credibility or ethical management of transgressions. Jeff agreed with Pamela Larde on the need for alignment across a diverse clientele.

Philippe Rosinski was last to share. He questioned which regulation are we talking about and for whom and by who? A state regulation, a national or international one? He didn't see it being practical and was against any regulation preventing coaches working with clients abroad in international geographies. He stated there being an organic evolution taking place. The best universities now embrace coaching, in places like Harvard and Cambridge. Coaching bodies do provide certification that is constantly updated and refreshed. Philippe called for coaching to be more ethically practiced, especially in Executive Coaching. This included respecting a wider context such as the UN's Sustainability Goals, rather than just support bureaucratic red tape.

Summary image by napkin.ai

My thoughts and reflections..

Use of Artificial Intelligence in coaching is presenting an emerging threat to Professional Indemnity and Liability Insurance and it becoming a trigger for forced regulation.

Coaches using AI might experience regulation via acts of Data and AI Law such as GDPR and especially the EU AI Act and its associated Product Liability directive that may enforce fines, punishment or prosecution on those that expose practices to unacceptable risks.

Having spoken to Insurers in the last few months to ask them how they might continue to protect coaches if they fail to mitigate against risks of AI use, it was made clear that coaches could lose their Professional Indemnity and Liability Insurance if a case is brought against them for harm caused through using AI, especially in inferring or influencing emotion and especially in triggering trauma.

A loss of insurance could end a coaches career -but also it could affect the reputation of coaching as a whole.

Regarding laws that could force regulation of coaching, conventional laws apply typically if one end of a coaching or customer-supplier relationship is located in the country or jurisdiction that the law is enacted in. A UK coach using AI for a client based in Europe is subject to EU Law. An EU Coach working with AI for a client in Japan is subject to the EU AI Act as well as local national law in Japan.

Someone asked when a coach enters into working in the mental health continuum, how does this affect their professional indemnity insurance? Can they be insured if they are not ‘registered or qualified’ therapist yet work in this area, sometimes unknowingly?

Having worked in Mental Health projects and on the boundary of Coaching and Therapy, there are 'grey' zones between Coaching and Therapy -especially between areas where a person is being helped in what they do and how, and the territory involving changing who a person is being.

Coaches perhaps need to consider the Inner Development Goals (IDGs) that are an offshoot of the UN's Sustainability Goals. Yuliya Shtaltovna is a thought leader in the IDG's and someone I've conversed on emerging challenges and opportunities. She recently spoke at the IDG Summit

Professionalisation and Governance v Regulation

In my past, when I was teaching Qigong/Tai Chi and associated Martial Arts, I have said to students, and teachers I trained, that Mastery is about curating proportionate harmony of feminine and masculine traits, of 'Yin' and 'Yang' respectively. In this context, of Regulation, it is about sacred, proportionate harmony between Control and Collaboration.

Arthur C. Clarke famously said, "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."

I adapted that for my students and told them that,

"Collaboration, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from Control."

Jazz Rasool

So maybe sufficiently advanced Collaboration, demonstrated through high fidelity Professionalisation and Governance, would be a better route to protecting clients rather than Regulation? After all, its always about the client right? It's not just semantics or language, there is spirit to Coaching centred on sophisticated Collaboration with the client rather than strict Control of what they do. The key driver for this is to establish Trust in Boundary Management, and that is only of value when it is cultivated through collaborative navigation of issues.

With the rising use of Artificial Intelligence in Coaching, agile software development is the norm -weekly revision and review and public release of updates to applications. Its critical for quality assurance and control. As a coaching community we cannot afford to review our governance, standards and practices once a year or even once a month with technology racing past us in its advances. Fifth Industrial Revolution, 'Industry 5.0', approaches to Coaching I have been promoting, what I have called 'Coaching 5.0' practices, ensure human coaches and coaching governance don't get left behind wild adoption of technologies and their false and true affordances. We don't want humans getting dumber and dumber as machines get smarter and smarter.

"Following Jazz’s comment on collaboration looking like control (which is quite profound), I’ve always seen SOPs as describing or codified trust in working together. Perhaps that’s a perspective, that regulations or governance are codified good coaching …"

Wen-Wei Chiang

Lest you are unaware, don't forget the document published exploring regulation in coaching, with cross-signatories of all the major governing bodies:

"The Professional Charter for Coaching, Mentoring and Supervision of Coaches, Mentors and Supervisors"

EU Page: https://lnkd.in/e7sTj38a

Document: https://lnkd.in/eWXRthTp

My final thought?

Best Practices are the Best Rules.

Proof of Value though can always break the rules.

Summary image by napkin.ai