Interesting article again. I can find lots of common ground here.
I've nodded my head quite heavily to this part. ;)
If I hadn't developed further and cuddled with my prejudices, I would have been extremely mistaken in this profession.
One small question:
Client-centred communication is all about taking your own interpretations out of the equation and mirroring the thoughts and feelings of the client. One of the the assumptions is that, by doing this, the client gains a new perspective and therefore reassesses his outlook on things or finds ways to work towards improving his situation, without the counselor indirectly paving the path (and forcing his interpretation) for the client.
Isn't that method contradictory to the leadership-role you later mention?
Sorry, if it's explained in the books you recommended last time, haven't found the time yet to take a closer look. ;)
Thank you again for reading and stopping by.
I am curious about what you will go to post on your blog :-)
If you give the client security that you know what you are doing, why should it contradict client-centered counseling? I even believe it supports this form of communication.
A bit like a film director who offers direction to the actor, but who has the artistic freedom to express himself. Without such an accepted leadership, consulting is difficult, I think. Who then should lead through a session?
I would go a little further and say that you can never really take your own interpretation out completely, but only realize that you have it. And, as far as you don't even realize that you have it, you always expect the probability of having your own interpretation when a kind of discomfort arises during a consultation. The systemic approach is quite complex and in some parts hardly understandable, but something like objectivity is practically impossible.
No problem. There's plenty of time for reading, no? And so it's nice, we are having another exchange.
Have you ever felt the relief of a client when you expressed yourself transparently about the claim of your leadership role? It often takes all the pressure off the client's shoulders and they can finally breathe freely. I've often experienced it that way, how about you?
I give you an example: Last Thursday an elderly woman came into my consultation hour and she got all over stressed and talked with great pressure in wanting to let it all out. Sometimes this is not good because a client can talk himself into "stress trance". So I really had to take over my leadership and telling her what is the best to do now and that she should immediately stop and breathe and also I told her it's totally okay to cry. Which she then did. After that we had a much better interaction and she got calm and silent and let me do my work which was helping her with a letter from an official department.
Don't make me anxious about starting my own blog. ;)
I agree about the impossibilty of eliminating subjectiveness (constructivism is calling out). Should have written "taking your interpretation out of the equation as much as possible".
I think I know what you mean, I just see it more as a switch between methods (which is fine and totally necessary). In your example with the elderly woman, if I think this through with the mindset of the client-centered-communication, wouldn't a client-centered approach have been, to not even assume that this might turn into a stress trance? Because that's an assumption which comes mainly from our own experiences and expectations. From a pure client-centered approach this could be seen as denying the client the insight to figure it out for himself (for example by mirroring her feelings).
Again, this is not about criticizing you. There's not just one way to reach the goal, and both methods might have the same outcome. It's more of an analytical approach instead of action-theoretical.
I'm also neck deep in literature at the moment, which probably doesn't help. ;)
I'll also have to think about your leadership question some more. I'll try to figure it out for me.
Laughter!! :-))
You must trust me in that. If I would have told you the whole story, you'd probably not have a doubt.
Maybe a picture will do it:
If someone is about to drown in front of you and gasps hard, would you think it would be wrong to save him because it could be the case that he would stay afloat?
That's what I'd call something like "Handlungsaufforderndes Mandat". ;)
Yes, it would probably be a bad idea if I'd approach someone who is drowning with the intention of changing his perspective on drowning. ;)