Something Positive for a Change

On my last placement I sat in on interviews done by a Careers Adviser who admitted that he didn't follow the Career Planning Journey structure. His interviews however were so enlightening in their reasoning and content, coupled with a calm and simple manner that I could not help but be impressed. He didn't think that he had managed to "move the students forward" but as far as I could tell they walked out with a clear head and with a far better idea of where they were going than when they came in. Admittedly the last theory that he had seen was Roger's Seven Point Plan, but seeing this individual in action makes me think that some people have a gift when dealing with others. I will be lucky if I manage to make his level but I now know what to aim for.

A StepToo Far,,,

The contemporary approaches to career guidance have in my opinion gone a step too far. Why should a counsellor need to understand another person's view of reality in order to help them? Why should we use a narrative technique to in order to reach an understanding? I know most of the class have become very enthused with these new techniques, but I am questioning why we should be looking so closely at a person's thought processes. Surely it is sufficient to look into their behaviour and go from there. Also since when did thinking about it ever get anyone anywhere? To add to that reasoning, where is the proof that narrative and metaphor techniques actually achieve anything for clients? I could see why Jennifer Kidd writes that they, "resonate with the individual", but what do they do beyond that?
Maybe this accounts for the failure of these techniques to catch on, and the tendency for career practitioners to stick with what they know i.e. direct interviewing.
Why should we have to act like psychologists if we are career advisers?
Like most things new, it pays to be weary of them. Look for example at house-building nowadays: not so much bricks and mortar as skimpy panels and plastic components. Or food, we have burgers and chicken nuggets instead of steaks. I say, "Let's have solidity and positivity, not minced up junk that plays havoc with your digestive system!" And the same goes for career guidance. We could give career guidance without processing the thoughts of clients. We could help them evaluate what they did before without being intrusive and getting so close too them. The kind of closeness advocated by narrative technique could scare some individuals. The counsellor has to remain at a certain distance just as they do physically.

As for Key Workers in the career service I am sceptical about this too. This is a step too far into social work for it to be a career guidance responsiblity. I know that there is a lot of worthwhile work being done, but once a career adviser becomes a Key Worker they have chosen a niche or what may be an opening to more work of the same kind.

Why should we become sociologists if we are career advisers?

I am hoping that the cognitive approach will provide the ideal answer, and I think Pete will be covering that this week.

Skills Development Advisors and the Job Centre

Careers Advisors in Careers Scotland are now going to be called Skills Development Advisors. From my placement I have learned that careers advisors are now spending part of their working time in Job Centres, which is also a recent development.

On top of this, the new literature of the Job Centre is significant in its wording. Customers can now undergo a "Diagnosis" and be given a "skills health-check". So now careers advisors have become the doctors of the job market.

Careers Advisors are generally unhappy with this new title. They are objecting to it as they think being called a Skills Development Advisor does not adequately reflect what they do and breaks association with the idea of the profession. The new title carries as much weight as that of 'Energy Advisor' or 'Customer Service Advisor'. It just does not reflect the vocational role.

Careers Scotland is now working closer than ever with the Job Centre. It seems reasonable to assume that the Job Centre will at some point start to recruit "Employment Advisors" to carry out guidance work full-time on site.

The termination of the job title is however worrying. Could this be the end of career guidance? Surely anyone could be recruited as a "Skills Development Advisor"? The Advisors themselves have begun a petition against it, so the concern is obviously apparent.

Career Management

Having been in conversation with an advisor I found that we were in agreement. She had worked in HR for a while, and told me about watching people being interviewed for work. As she did this she realised that the people who were getting the jobs were not necessarily the ones who should have: all too often an experienced, well qualified person would not perform well in interview. She came to the conclusion that they just did not know "how to play the game". And I added "So you are here to help coach people how to do just that-play the game!" "Yes" was the reply.

I now think that the subject of Career Management should be put on the school curriculum. Pupils should have the opportunity to connect what they are doing to the outside world, and learn that they might have to do a bit of 'acting ' in the interview situation. This could be taught by a Drama Teacher! For some this would help with the moments when they wonder why they have to go to school. A career path these days is turning into one of many transitions for a lot of people, so it makes sense to educate everyone in how to deal with that. They should be prepared for moving from job to job, keeping their skills up to date, and realising that they may need to keep learning in order to be employable by other employers. I know this all ties in with the idea of the 'boundaryless' career' and Michael Arthur's findings in New Zealand. The reality is that for many of us there is no such thing as a 'job for life' and we should be prepared for that.

A little drama in careers guidance.

I liked the following when I read it. This is why careers advisers should do their job properly:

"Klapp (1969) likened the social system to a play or theatrical performance, asking: What if we are defective in role casting? Then the social system becomes a disenchanting play in which "most of the actors are dissatisfied with their parts; or, worse, extras standing around with no parts at all".

All My Hard Work

More and more I am realising how subjective the measuring of our work is. I really value the practicality of this course, as we have so many opportunities to practice. However I am frustrated with the differing ideas that assessors have. I know that they are only human so these differences are inevitable. Some of the good things that I have done as a result of true industriousness and hard mental labour have went unnoticed, as it is just not possible for assessors to grasp everything that we are doing or why we are doing it, just as it is not possible for me to be the perfect student. I guess we are all only human...so on that basis I forgive everybody. Where does this lead me in reflective practice? Well, if the outcome of our efforts is not what we were hoping for, then we should be satisfied that it could not have been otherwise as it was not due to a lack of effort on our part. Just as Anne of Confident Futures told us!

Social constructivism

As I understand it, social constructivism means that we all start from zero at birth taking on constructs as we develop. Our constructs are the formation of our belief systems, values, and general way of seeing the world which implies that someone from a different culture will probably have a totally different set of constructs.

Just a note

I was surprised to learn something about myself that I was unaware of up until this point. I love working with words, lists, and any kind of written piece, but tell me to put things into diagrams or symbols and I feel uncomfortable. So, I have been told I am a person of words not a creative designer. This explains for me why I took an almost instant dislike of putting constructs into a diagram, and representing my life in a life space with symbols. For me, long live the narrative technique and the power of language! Although each to his own I must add...

I don't want to be a careers adviser.......

I don't want to be a careers adviser if I am supposed to curb people's individuality and any innovative ideas they might have. If someone came to me and said they wanted to join the Hong Kong Police, for example, I would say "Do whatever floats your boat!" So am I a post-modernist thinker? I believe we are all different, and should be free to choose what we do in life. One of my grandfathers came from a family of farmers and gave up his right to owning a farm because he wanted to work in a bank. He became a bank manager, which I think proves my point. I have just realised that the word "freedom" keeps coming up.

Kelly's Theory...how sound is it?

I agree that we should be empowering clients by exploring possibilities with them, but I am wondering whether we should be analysing them by using Kelly's theory. It could be seen as a way of messing with people's heads. What if we were to get something wrong? We are only humans ourselves, and we are not mind-readers as far as I know. But wait, we do mess with people's heads, we question their knowledge, and we try to get some of them to move beyond their comfort zone. Here is Kelly's fundamental postulate:
"A person's processes are psychologically channelized by the way he anticipates events."
So Kelly could be saying that a fixed mind set can be changed to a growth mind set. When we come across a client who is limiting their own choices we immediately try to help them broaden their horizons by offering them options. We might not however have the time to get clients to write about themselves in the third person, for us then to sit down and analyse their constructs. I just cannot imagine it happening in the course of a busy working day.

Reflective Practice

On my last placement,which wasn't with Careers Scotland, one of the Employment Advisers got very hot under the collar because a young gent had just come in for her help, having failed to turn up a year ago for a Duke of Edinburgh Training Course that she had organised for him. She huffed and puffed and said what a time waster he was, and asked me to deal with him! On interviewing him I concluded that he was seriously seeking help as he was eighteen and doing nothing except playing his guitar all day. I also found him to be lacking in confidence. Knowing that the Adviser did not want to help him, I directed him to do things for himself. He had applied for college the year before and had not been given a place, so I advised him to apply again, and to keep himself busy he could apply for jobs. I gave him a lot more than that by way of guidance. The Employment Adviser went up to him and wanted to know what he was going to do now. After he was gone she was still arguing her case that he was a waste of time.

Then there was the very loud fifty year old man who announced, on arrival, that no-one would give him a job because they were saying that he was too old. It turned out that he had only worked two years of his entire life and that was in the infantry. In his spare time he had managed to seed eight children. However, he had been funded to do some training for a security job, and he had done it(a course that he said he passed with flying colours, but apparently they only give you Pass or Fail), and now he wanted to apply for the card that would make him licensed to do Security Work but needed funding for that. The organisation could easily have funded him, but the Adviser fobbed him off and when he had gone threw his paperwork behind her and said that there was no way he was getting funding from her!

My point is that I was really uncomfortable with what I thought was unprofessional practice. A doctor treats you no matter how many times you go to see them, don't they? The teenager should have been treated as if it was the first time he had come into the office. The dodgy older gentleman could have been employable for once in his life if he had been funded for his license, so it actually made sense to take him seriously. This could have been a changing point in his entire existence!

It is frightening to think that Advisers have this kind of power over their clients.

Sartre's Version of Freedom

Sartre was just carrying me away with his "optimism" when it occurred to me how unforgiving his theory is. There are no excuses for us. We are the sum of our actions. I felt myself being enthused by the thought that I could be anything and that in the end it was all down to me. But how true is that? When we are with our clients, aren't we constantly trying to identify the constraints upon them? We are always measuring them in some way or another. Sometimes where they live is identified as a constraint or a possible "excuse". In doing so we are considering, as Zola did, that environment has an effect on how we shape our lives. Some people cannot be what they want to be because they have to look after another person. Young people are restricted in many ways by the adults who are in charge of them. Other young people can soar into their desired path in life because their parents actively encourage them. Then there is money. If you have it, surely this is an advantage, an aid to freedom.

How wrong then was William Wallace if he did say, "You can take our lives but you cannot take our freedom?" For are we ever truly free?

As for religious constraints Sartre says, "...what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God." He is saying that belief in God or Gods distorts man's view of himself, and allows excuses for his behaviour. I agree with him on this point. One religion has the stance that God will judge us not by the sum of our actions but by the sum of our intentions. That is a comforting thought, but may well prevent what Pete called "self-efficacy".

Humanism and existentialism have their common ground usually bound up in aetheism and the belief that death is the end. I am not convinced however that existentialism would produce kindness and good deeds.

Carl Rogers, lovely man

I love Rogers' humanistic view that people are basically good or healthy, and that anything else is a distortion that can be put right. He believes that individuals have an innate urge to develop his or her potential, which is an optimistic but admirable stance in my opinion.

I agree that the counsellor should put their ego to bed in the counsellor/client relationship. We should attempt to achieve empathy when helping others. There is the issue however of the counsellor simply being a facilitator and non-directive. I underwent some free counselling sessions in my student past on the recommendation of a friend who had said that it made her feel good! So on that note I signed up for a gut-spilling session. I talked and talked and the lady would listen, and when she did not come up with any independent responses I was puzzled. I was so puzzled I kept going back repeating the same script in the hope that she might actually come up with a "solution". Half a dozen sessions further down the line I told her I did not have time to come back (because I had given up hope of getting a response from her). It was at this point that she gave me a hug (!!this is where the cuddly part of Carl comes in I suppose) and offered her one and only bit of advice, which I shall keep to myself because it's too revealing. Getting a hug from a stranger was weird, and had I recieved her wisdom in the first session I would not have gone back. This is what makes me sceptical of the Carl Rogers' approach. I cannot see where facilitating is effective in all cases.

The job...the new religion?!

Tom Hodgkinson writes that, "The idea of the 'job' as the answer to all woes, individual and social, is one of the most pernicious myths of modern society." He continues, "...the myth suggests to us that a 'good job' will offer us ample money, a social life, status and work which we will find 'rewarding.". However this is usually far from the truth. Unlike the weavers of the early eighteenth century who were in command of their own work patterns, we are subject to bosses who enslave us with long hours and low pay. We are, in fact, slaves to the job. The job, he claims, has even become a religion, all of which is the result of industrialisation and the Protestant work ethic.

I have to agree that the job has taken over the lives of many people. They accept long hours, low pay, losing a comparatively large chunk of their wages to the government, but somehow still feel proud just to be able to say "I am working." They do not see themselves as slaves, but think that they have no choice but to stick with their job or get a better one. Losing a job can have consequences on a person's mental health, men in particular who see working as their main role in life. People, both women and men have come to measure their own worth by their status of employment. We suspect that there must be a better way, but the pattern continues and indeed working conditions are getting worse as employers give less breaks, take risks with health and safety, pay relatively less for more hours work. The Trade Unions have lost the power they once had. Some employers refuse to let their workforce become part of a Union. This was, as far as I can remember the fault of Margaret Thatcher. In what should be a time of progress, as technology makes our lives easier, the working life has degenerated and in some cases is akin to a life in the old workhouses. Employers are authoritarian in their attitude. There is no excuse for taking a day off, not even being sick. They expect the employee to be flexible. They would prefer not to have to train anyone, because it is cheaper if someone else takes care it. Canteens are becoming a thing of the past as is subsidised food. We are indeed suffering from, "a brutal, standardized work culture,...". This is why many people have gone abroad, in the hope of finding a better way of life where work plays a less significant role and leaves ample opportunity for creativity and fun.

The unfortunate thing is that in the United Kingdom we have no choice. We need the wages to pay the rent, and to buy clothes and food. We are so busy just surviving that we have little time left to be creative about making money in other ways, as Hodgkinson advocates we should. The 'idle' way of life which he prescribes to, is only possible for very successful people such as famous rock stars or those who are already rich.

Consequently for us, the job rules. As Careers Advisers we will undoubtedly be spreading the religion of the job. We will be influencing young people to become part of the already enslaved workforce, or will we? Would it not be less pressurising to just tell them to develop their talents and creativity for their own sakes, and relate this loosely to a career where they may or may not make money? If there are no job opportunities for them, what should we tell them? Many Advisers tailor their guidance to suit the circumstances of the client. For some clients, it is acceptable to talk about a "gap year", to others an impoverished background makes this unthinkable.
Incidentally here is something which I think reinforces Tom Hodgkinson's point about the job giving value to the individual. Why are we being told to interview people who are employed as part of our study of Labour Market Trends. Surely being unemployed is just as much a part of Labour Market Trends. After all some very intelligent and experienced people are jobless.

The only constant is change....

From reading Donald Schon's piece on"The Crisis of Confidence in Professional Knowledge"a second time, I understand that he advocates a need for professionals to use reflective practice in order to deal with change. According to Schon, professionals themselves have identified the weakness of depending solely on professional knowledge; "On the whole, their assessment is that professional knowledge is mismatched to the changing characteristic of the situations of practice - the complexity, uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflicts which are increasingly perceived as central to the world of professional practice."

In my opinion the world is always changing, and whatever we gain as professional knowledge at University will never prepare us for everything that we will meet in practice. It makes sense that professionals should be prepared to be considering the effectiveness of their performance with regard to their clients, just as businesses need to be constantly watching the patterns of the market for evidence of change so that they can modify their behaviour to match market trends. As people, are we not always trying to improve ourselves and looking for ways in which to do it?

So this is a profession....?

I see the mistrust of professionals as a natural and evolving process. The period between 1963 and 1981 where Donald Schon perceives "The Crisis of Confidence in Professional Knowledge" was society awakening to the fact that not all professionals are worthy of the adjective "professional". Hardly a crisis, just things being put into perspective.

The spread of education coupled with the growing power of the media has opened peoples' eyes with the result that they can scrutinize their doctors ,dentists, lawyers, accountants, etc., to their hearts content. Given the bad press that some professionals are getting, it is little wonder if the public has a distrust of all of them.

The present government is on the same bandwagon, opting to put pressure on the professionals wherever possible,wanting to be seen to be acting on our behalf. Certainly not all professionals deserve this treatment and having to make themselves accountable in terms of targets and visible outcomes creates restrictions for those who simply want to be able to do their job properly. I think that "professional artistry" which Schon brings to our attention, has always been in the capacity of some professionals who have found that they could adapt no matter what.

If Career Guidance is becoming devalued as a profession it is because it does not market itself well. When was the last time anyone saw a Careers Adviser on television? There are other professions which have to outrank it in terms of usefulness to society.

Ivan Ellich... has to be the ultimate sceptic of professionalism. He recognises five illusions that professionals use to disable citizens. They have created a nation of consumers to whom they dictate what their needs as consumers are. Professionals manipulate the rest of society so that people see them as indispensable, and make them so by following the trends of the market. My favourite line is this, "Women or men, who have come to depend almost entirely on deliveries of standardized fragments produced by tools that are operated by anonymous others, cease to live human lives, and at best barely survive - even though they do so surrounded by glitter."
In other words professionals have been conditioning society, and change is inevitable the more people realise that this is the case. Still, I think he is just demonstrating a nostalgia for the days when we had to live without electrictity, running water, carpets, a change of clothes, etc., ...a few days on a far-off Scottish island might have changed his attitude!!!

If at first you don't succeed.....here is my second attempt at a blog!