Certified. Safe. Ineffective. The Coaching Crisis No One Talks About

Somewhere in the early 2000s, something strange happened.

The business of certifying coaches quietly outgrew the business of coaching itself.

Today, when you hear that the global coaching industry is worth billions — you’re not hearing about real coaching.

You’re hearing about the certification market.

In that surge of certifications, something got lost. 

The coaching process itself suffered damage.

What was once meant to be a powerful tool for transformation became… a formula.

No wonder coaching isn’t easy to sell anymore.

People don’t pay for conversations — they pay for change.

Worse still, the certifiers themselves — often with no academic standing or external validation — became the gatekeepers.

Self-proclaimed “accreditation bodies” began drawing up non-peer-reviewed processes and selling them as coaching gospel.

What they offered wasn’t rigour. It was replication.

Thousands of coaches learning the same model, asking the same generic questions, and delivering the same underwhelming results.

The process is broken. Full of myths. And here’s the proof:

• Coaches are taught not to give answers — as if insight is less valuable than inquiry.

• They’re trained to never challenge — confusing politeness with transformation.

• The process is designed to be open-ended and indefinite — which keeps the client dependent, not empowered.

All in the name of “holding space.”

But let’s be honest — if the process worked, it would sell itself.

Instead, most coaches struggle to get clients, retain them, or justify their fees.

So let’s bust a few myths.

Not with opinions.

With evidence — backed by peer-reviewed research and two decades of field application.

Before we bust the myths, let’s land one crucial blow to the certified method.

According to a peer-reviewed study by Wang, Lai, Xu, and McDowall (2021), clients and coaches estimated their improvement from coaching to be a massive 78%.

But when subjected to scientific assessments?

The actual improvement was just 3.6%.

Myth #1: Chemistry is Everything

We’re told over and over: “Coaching is all about the relationship.”

In fact, 84% of coachees say the quality of their relationship with the coach is critical to success.

But what does the data say?

Only 8% of actual performance improvement can be attributed to the coach–coachee relationship.

(Source: Jones, Woods, & Guillaume, 2016; Theeboom, Beersma, & Van Vianen, 2014)

That’s a massive gap between belief and impact.

Yes, rapport matters.

But coaching isn’t therapy. It’s not friendship.

Transformation is not a byproduct of chemistry — it’s the result of clarity, structure, and tension applied with precision.

Myth #2: More Sessions = More Results

This one’s deeply ingrained: “Coaching is a journey — the more sessions, the better the outcome.”

But meta-analytic research says otherwise.

More sessions do not equate to more impact.

In fact, for certain outcomes, fewer sessions actually deliver better results.

That’s right — not only is “more” ineffective, it can be counterproductive.

Prolonged coaching often leads to dependency, diffusion of focus, and diminishing returns.

Transformation doesn’t need more time.

It needs better pressure, sharper focus, and a defined arc of change.

Myth #3: Intention Drives Change

Coaching today is obsessed with beliefs, mindsets, and intentions.

Set the right intention, they say — and the behaviour will follow.

But behavioural science says otherwise.

According to a comprehensive review by Rhodes & de Bruijn (2013), intention predicts behaviour only one-third of the time.

Which means: 66% of the time, it doesn’t.

You can believe in your goal. You can feel committed.

And still — you won’t do what you said you would.

Yet coaching sessions continue to over-index on “aha moments” and mindset shifts, ignoring the actual mechanics of behavioral change.

Real change doesn’t come from how you think.

It comes from what you build, measure, and do — under structured guidance and tension.

It’s about time you un-certify yourself.

Because here’s the uncomfortable truth:

Most certifications add alphabets to your name — P, M, or whatever else —

based on the number of hours you’ve coached,

not on the impact you’ve created.

What good is that?

You could spend 1,000 hours asking safe questions and avoiding outcomes… and still be labeled a “Master Coach.”

In what other profession is time spent more valuable than results delivered?

It’s not mastery. It’s maintenance.

PS: This is what real coaching looks like:

It delivers results in 3 sessions or less — or the client doesn’t pay.

How do you deliver such a process?

The uncertified way: Exactitude Coaching