While training should include exposure to a wide range of therapeutic interventions it will be obvious from the Chapter on Modalities that we will lean towards the person centred (PCT) and cognitive behavioural (CBT) methods.
(If you have skipped to this post, and you are not familiar with either modality, the next Sub-Chapter will make more sense if you read the above links now)!
Even though I have stated earlier that people who are very hurt might not have sufficient inner stability to make the most of modalities that are cognitive/behavioural in nature, and/or are task oriented alone, it is necessary include it in training, as CBT and its principles substantially augment person centred work – and vice versa.
Most statutory therapeutic interventions, including mainstream psychological approaches (and the well-known twelve step programme for addicts) use CBT to effect positive change.
Its success depends on what capacity the recipient has to understand its principles, content, and values – and many very hurt people will benefit from CBT when their acute distress has eased – and their confidence and belief in themselves rises. It will then be far more meaningful.
PCT’s great strength is that it can be used in a wide variety of settings and will always complement other modalities.
The warmth, hope, trust, inspiration and love that we associate with it, will, hopefully, be present in mainstream psychological approaches, as they will in mainstream education and healing. Sometimes their presence will depend on the characteristics of the individual practitioner – or organisation.
In person centred work they are central and essential elements.
Because they are central and essential in the work, they also need to be present in training provided for prospective staff.
While they are core, or fundamental elements, I believe that the optimum situation would be to have a suite of training on offer. That is, different training for people with different abilities and involvement, whether the courses are long or short.
I believe when external trainers are used they need to adhere to the above, and to two-way knowledge flow ethos also.
In my experience, people in training positions in organisations that either have never been grounded in the experience of families in distress, or have moved away from the work on the ground to the extent that they have forgotten what the realities are for such families, generally struggle to adhere to the above norms.
That is not to say that there is anything wrong with any other training. But I am describing the training that I feel works with our Focus Group – and that will be concerned as much with personal enrichment as well as enhancement of professional competence.
A Little Warning
Now before I continue with this Chapter on Training, and in particular the Principal Elements that I describe in the posts in the next Sub-Chapter, I need to mention an important aspect that could have negative effects on an organisation.
That is, the formation of an elite hierarchy of the trained who have more entitlement, against those not trained.
This is quite a difficult aspect to deal with as it often slips unknowingly into an organisation. It needs to be monitored on an ongoing basis as it can become a real danger to the sharing power ethos that we aim to engender. Leadership needs to have awareness that it can occur, and be alert to the danger of it.
If we have more training we may have more positions of responsibility, and therefore higher pay, but that does not give us more entitlement.
If our commitment to sharing power, two-way knowledge flow and non-hierarchical approach is genuine from the start, we will view our position with a humility that is encouraging to others rather than be elitist or off-putting.