Competence versus credibility, its a topic that’s come up a lot in my conversations with folks over the past year or so. This is an important distinction to look at, and for the sake of time I won’t be able to fully unpack it right now. But, at the very least, I want to get the conversation started.
Competence is the ability to do something well or effectively.
Credibility is about being trusted or believed.
The point I want to drive home here is that these are note the same thing. We often make the mistake of thinking they are though.
I run into this often in the world in helping professions like life coaching or therapy.
For a life coach like myself, a few points of credibility could be:
Holding the Associate Credentialed Coach (ACC) distinction, conferred by the International Coaching Federation.
Being a ‘certified’ coach by a training program, such as the Center for Coaching Excellence, where I’ve trained extensively for over a year.
Client testimonials that say I’m great.
A ‘professional’ looking website.
6 years of experience, and having worked with over 90 clients.
And so on so forth..
But all of that is akin to “talking the talk.”
Competence is about “walking the walk.”
All of those points of credibility are inferring something like, “Hey, this person is pretty good at this stuff. He knows what he’s doing and does it well.”
But when a coach and client actually meet and work together, what’s the results? What’s the impact? How effective is the coach and coaching partnership in helping a client to make REAL change and progress in their life? This is what competence is about. Actually doing the damn thing, not just claiming and signaling to be good at it.
The issue of competence vs credibility is veryyyy interesting to look at for life coaching and counseling/therapy. One reason is that the landscape of credibility is radically different, almost polar opposite, between these two professions.
As a therapist, there is a tremendous amount of legally required credibility to be able to call one’s self a therapist and work with people in that way. And yet, I can tell, there are MANY incompetent therapists out there who check all the boxes of required credibility but actually suck at the job.
In comparison, life coaching has virtually no barriers to entry. There’s no legal protections or requirements to call one’s self a life coach and charge people money for whatever you do with them. It’s kind of crazy. I find it bittersweet. I enjoy the lack of bureaucracy and red tape, but also sometimes I talk with people who’ve had a shitty experience with a so-called certified life coach. I feel anger when I hear of people misrepresenting my profession and doing harm on others when the entire point of this job to help, not harm.
I chose coaching first precisely because I was burned out on higher education after finishing my bachelors and I wanted a break, BUT I wanted to help people in a real and meaningful way as my life’s work.
I chose to get a year of training and earn an ICF (international coaching federation) credential. But I wasn’t required to do that. I could’ve done some cheap 2-day weekend life coaching training and been able to call myself a “blahgiddy blah yadda yadda certified” life coach and then started seeking to get paid by helping people.
I didn’t choose the quick and easy route because I wanted competence. I felt like I could help people as a life coach, but I wanted to know that I could, and more so I wanted to be effective at it. I wanted to make a real impact and positive in my work.
I wasn’t out for the name and the claim of coaching, I was in it for the results.
I hold myself accountable to getting results with my clients, and if we aren’t able to help them make progress thru our work together then I would rather see them get other help than for me to just keep taking their money, taking up our time, and not making a real difference.
Maybe the takeaway here that there’s a strange polarity and interconnected relationship between competence and credibility. In both counseling and life coaching, we see that credibility doesn’t guarantee competence.
I wonder, can competence be self-evident in firsthand experience?
Can we know it when we see it, feel it, or hear it?
Maybe competence and credibility is like the difference between dinner and the menu.
We eat the dinner; we view the menu.
We experience competence; we look at credibility.
We look through the menu and pick something, hoping its good.
And when the food comes out, and we really experience it, that’s the moment we know if the restaurant is real deal, if it’s competent in it’s claims.
I want to keep growing and exploring in an understanding of this topic.
What’s your perspective? What’s your take on competence vs credibility?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.