You might think that the change of International Coaching Federation Core Competencies is just an updated to one document. But it affected much more than this and it impacted Standards in coaching profession. I’ve been diving deep into the new ICF ACC Minimum Skills Requirements (2025) and what’s fascinating is not just the updated language, but the way the expectations of quality and precision in coaching have evolved since the 2022 version. While both documents describe what “good coaching” looks like, the 2025 update introduces far more specific behavioral indicators, especially around how coaches demonstrate key competencies. Take Active Listening (Competency 6) as one example: -In 2022, the focus was simple, a coach would fail if they didn’t respond to what the client communicated. -In 2025, the expectations are sharper and more detailed. Inconsistent behaviors now include: Summaries or paraphrases that are “overly wordy or complex.” Failing to “ask the client to respond to the coach’s summaries or paraphrasing to ensure accuracy or shared understanding.” This change moves beyond checking for presence of listening. It also emphasizes the quality and partnership of the listening process. It’s no longer enough to reflect. All coaches are expected to confirm shared meaning and support the client’s ownership of the conversation. To me, this reflects a broader shift from competence as 'performance' toward competence as 'relational precision'. As someone who supports coaches in training and assessment, I find this level of clarity incredibly valuable, because it gives both coaches and mentor coaches more tangible criteria for reflection and growth. I’ll be sharing more of these detailed observations as I explore how other competencies have evolved in the new framework. Stay tuned for more reflections as we unpack what these changes mean for coaching practice and development. #siliconvalleycoach
I love this **Summaries or paraphrases that are “overly wordy or complex."** and it support a focus on the client doing the work. I find for PCC and especially MCC that paraphrasing - clean langauge style - cleint's exact words - hits the BARS more effectively than rephrasing. Anyone any research on this? Jonathan Passmore ? From memory of what I've read it minimises misinterpretation especially when the coachee is being coaches in eg their second language and rephrasing into new, unfamiliar vocabulary can feel inauthentic, affect power, or imply judgmental as 'better' words are used by the coach, potentially hindering communication. Thanks Inga Bielinska, MCC, ESIA, EIA, ITCA, ACTC, MA for making me thing,
As always, your evaluation invites deep(er) investigation. While I'm currently reviewing (all) the updated competencies, I have yet to compare and contrast what that also means for the markers. More study is in the works. Thank you Inga!
Elaine LEEN
8 Monate
Thanks for sharing!
Thank you Inga Bielinska, MCC, ESIA, EIA, ITCA, ACTC, MA for going to this level of analysis. As a trainer and mentor - for as long as I can remember - I've encourage coaches to follow up their reflections with a question - partner with the reflective partner by being their mirror so they can identify their 'blind spots'.