HARVESTING CLIENTS - Another practice peep

in steemstem •  7 years ago  (edited)

I would like to talk again about my practical work with people, first about a particular client & then some general talk and method-using.

This time it's a young adult that I coach up to twice a week. We've known each other for about three months now. I support her in finding a position as an apprentice. In each of my coachlings' lives, there are events that influence their existence.

One such event was the suicide of a friend of my client. I found out about it in conversation with her pedagogue. Because this was an important piece of information, I included it in the following meeting with her.

Why did I do that?

First of all, I put myself in her shoes. As soon as there is a death in my life, I want the people I deal with to contribute. It is enough for me that, as far as they are informed, they express their condolences to me when only acquainted. I feel that this is the least I can do and that it complies with the moral code of my society. I have noticed that this is the case, for example, in my own omissions in this regard. For example, if I had failed to ask for a person in my social environment who suffered from a serious illness. It felt wrong not do so.

The logical conclusion is to ask just as much as someone has lost a relative or friend.

When I expressed my condolences at the beginning of our conversation, my client said: "I don't always know what to answer." I replied, "That's not a big deal, just say thank you. I think it is important that you know I am informed and that I can understand that this subject is sad and painful for you. That's why I want you to know that my heart is involved. I'm assuming you meet people who don't." She said, "Oh, yes, so and so is like that! They won't say anything!"

I replied, after acknowledging that this hurts, that the failure to mention it has to do with the bias of raising a sensitive issue. We talked about her friend's suicide for a while and I told her that I thought she might be wondering if she could have done or prevented something. It was not so important to find a detailed answer to everything, and we remained to say that these questions were normal and that there were several stages in dealing with them, and she would go through them all.

In the course of the conversation I saw that it was good for her, and so I asked: "Are you now ready to start our work?", which she affirmed. We were then completely in our element and worked on her applications for good three-quarters of an hour.

After we had finished this, we came back into the conversation because, interestingly enough, an institution that she had already mentioned in a previous meeting and which is docking to the Catholic faith had revealed itself to her as desirable.

We had worked out a number of points for her volunteer year, which corresponded to her experiences in this context. It led one thing to another, and she said: "I do not understand why in my generation nobody has faith. It helps me now and makes me feel safer."

I found this remarkable and asked her about her background. She gave information about her parents and that they had belonged to different confessions. But most of all she was influenced by x, who she would love dearly, even if she would make a big drama about faith.

Then she gave me a quote from x:

"Never talk about religion, politics, and soccer!"

I had to laugh heartily about this contradiction and the familiarity between us, and so did she. I told her, "You know what, your x is a Buddhist without knowing it. I heard exactly the same statement from the Buddhist teachings. Just a little differently put. One should not make unnecessary suppositions about how the world or the universe came into being, about religion and not about society or negative speculation about people who are not present." (this also counts as a reminder for myself, as I often enough fall for the same).

I gave a little history lesson that a few hundred years ago the world seemed to have been the other way round and that the Church oppressed and persecuted opinions and accused people of heresy. And that it is the case today that as a Christian one is ashamed to admit this openly in a secular environment.

I made by my arm movement a scale which struck to both sides extremely and she laughed and said: "Yes, exactly and you say it is much better in the middle!"

If it may seem that I am talking about religion or secularity here, I would say that this is only of secondary importance. What happened between me and my young client was primarily an act of mutual understanding.

In the process of experiencing encounters with my clients, I use the method of "active listening" or client-centred communication. It is like a dance where I hear and see what they are referring to and that I pull what seemed to be of importance to them. When I am not sure, this is the case, I ask. When I can clearly see that it is so, I go on with questioning or giving information or offering advice.

Fruity thoughts

In between letting this article flourish I was cooking dinner for the hungry teenager (my son) and me. While I cut the tomatoes and was pleased by their color and consistency (they were just right), I thought of my clients in this way. The interaction with them is a seasonal work. You must be aware of when they have the right maturity to be picked from the tree. If they are still in the stage of ripening, it would be unwise to collect them, but if they are overripe, it would be bad to simply let them fall down. I, therefore, have to adjust the right moment of harvesting for a meeting to be tasteful.

Check my inner intention. Am I spikey?

If I can feel that I merely continue with a topic to which I want an approval of my client, this is to be understood of wanting to have the feeling of being "right", I can identify my intention as questionable and not constructive. A trigger can hide within almost every sentence, even within a single word or form of expression.

So, when I as a coach am triggered by a topic I am not pleased with at all, I must be aware that I feel uneasy because of it. Some years ago, I would have reacted with prejudices to my clients opening of her faith and - of course, much too polite to say so - I would have reacted with restraint and defensiveness. She would have felt this and then withdrew. At that time, because my mother had indoctrinated me in this regard, I had an aversion to all religious believers. I have overcome this luckily.

I come into contact with my prejudices every day. Since I live in a big city with many cultures, I inevitably come across their habits, worldviews and strangeness.

If I hadn't developed further and cuddled with my prejudices, I would have been extremely mistaken in this profession. It is for me also a question of ethics that I get myself aligned with the company which pays my fees as those are all institutions who engage with families and groups of different nations.

A session is a slow stream - not a racecar ride

Can you see that talking in waterfalls and chatting endlessly provides a lot more traps and triggers compared with talking slowly and with more breaks between sentences? So the second method I use is to bring more calmness and breaks into an encounter. This has a double effect: it prevents my client from gunfire talking and not being able to even listen to him- or herself and, as a consequence, of losing contact to her- or himself. And it prevents me to stay too much alert and to fall into the trap of trying to hold the pace. Of course, it lessens the number of triggers. In avoiding the rush there lays a profit for both me and the client.

In short: The less one talks the less stupid it can get.

Feeling good about being the authority

For this, a client has to accept my leading role and tolerate that I interrupt and guide our pace. Within the relationships of young adults and me this often just happens naturally and even is not a question I do have to clear up first. Also, the acceptance comes often just by itself because I mirror them, that I once have been in the same situation and that I can understand their insecurities and struggles.

It can happen though that a client is not accepting my leading role and refuses to cooperate, like in this case.

Another method in client interaction is to pick them up where they stand - language wise as also which form of communication style they use. It is the same as if a french speaking person prefers to speak with French. Today I had a young woman which I had no problem to come to common ground.

What if I have to deal with a young man?

There, it is the same. I coach a young man, with whom I had so far two appointments and I realized after the meetings that I had used another language and tone of voice. Don't misunderstand that - I did not fake my behavior. What I did there was to place myself in familiar shoes. I have four brothers and I remember on a subconscious level their teenage friends and how they related to each other as well as to adult males. Would I have talked to that young man in the same way I did with the young woman he wouldn't even have bothered listening.

A little bit it is like acting on a theatre stage and truly pull on a role. The audience would shout at you if you cannot transport a character without feeling and applying it deeply.

Also, within those communication methods, there is the aspect what kind of style is involved. Does one talk in terms of giving rational information? Or is he mostly unraveling things? Is he a narrative speaker or one who prefers a short exchange of facts? Is one flowery or straight, gooey or prickly, aggressive or attentive, blue or orange, green or red?

During my education, I thought my teachers must be insane in expecting me to watch all those details, body language, pace, style and so on and so forth. I felt overwhelmed and was in awe how they as practitioners coped with this approach.

Finding common ground and an accepted form of communication

When I see that a client is too much bound by his style and form I must not cope and give myself totally away, rather I can be of service in disturbing his pattern by providing a question attached to that I first give him my observation and than ask if this is a form of communication he usually chooses with people. And which causes troubles. Also, I could act that out, giving him the advantage in saying: "I will act now something out in front of you. This is for the purpose to reveal something. It is an offer and you tell me afterward if I played it good or not."

Of course, one cannot expect to be a pro starting this work.
And I know that I was often mistaken and didn't even come near what I was taught. But within the years - and because I admired those skills - I was getting better.

It is not so much about knowing the names and methods of those ones who invented them (often the line goes way-way back into history) but to have understood and experienced them practice-wise. That was why my students and I were eager (and anxious) to start practicing not only with other students and teachers but with "real fruits".

Becoming myself a tasty wine

Talking about my practice in the above manner involves always the methods I learned. With every year and client, I polish my practice and become more skilled as well. That is the same in every profession. There is also the danger of getting too comfortable and blind to this and that. Therefore, I like my concept of life always mixed with other sources of knowledge as well as mingling my weekly hours with different activities like painting, solving technical stuff and getting acquainted with things I never did before. This gets less, I admit, the older I become.

Since I got a member of this platform I wrote a lot about methods and the background of my systemic approach. Today I preferred to write about my client encounters first and not interrupting my text in explaining the methods. I decided to provide you in the end ...

  1. ... with some of my previous articles (which refer indirectly to this topic and speak more about methods & are the base of my practice)
  2. ... text sources providing information about communication

In my next article, I think, I will write about the orange, green, blue and red characters - withdrawing them from a method called "Synergos" and which gained its technique from other, older sources in time and history (like Traditional Chinese Medicine, shamanic influences, and Western Psychology).

Thank you for reading.


Picture sources:

Grapes: Photo by Amos Bar-Zeev on Unsplash
Condolesence: Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash
Tomatoes: Photo by NordWood Themes on Unsplash
Cactus: Photo by Joanna Kosinska on Unsplash
Shoes: Photo by Travis Essinger on Unsplash
Wine: Photo by Marco Mornati on Unsplash


Text sources:

- https://steemit.com/steemstem/@erh.germany/private-practice-a-case-where-i-closed-consultation
- https://steemit.com/steemstem/@erh.germany/please-disturb-a-tribute-to-annoyances
- https://steemit.com/steemstem/@erh.germany/prescribing-a-symptom-or-how-doing-exactly-what-has-become-a-problem-can-help-the-problem-huh
- https://steemit.com/steemstem/@erh.germany/about-system-theory-and-the-integrative-look-on-life-you-are-not-as-objective-thinking-as-you-might-assume
- https://steemit.com/steemstem/@erh.germany/is-it-more-profitable-to-suffer-than-to-let-go-of-a-problem

- Leadership: https://www.inscapeconsulting.com/2017/10/develop-self-awareness-leader/
- Person-centered systems theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-centered_systems_theory
- Gestalt psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology
- Communication styles & listening skills: http://www.academia.edu/6861665/Communication_styles_and_listening_skills
- Communication styles based on cultures & a little self test: http://www2.pacific.edu/sis/culture/pub/1.5.3_-_Communication_styles.htm
- Patient-centred communication is associated with positive therapeutic alliance: a systematic review
- Communication that values patient autonomy is associated with satisfaction with care: a systematic review
- Patients value patient-therapist interactions more than the amount or content of therapy during inpatient rehabilitation: a qualitative study


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Thank you, team! And thank you, @justtryme90. Always a pleasure.

Pst, check steem chat =3

It must be a great balancing act to do what you do. To remove yourself and your prejudices (or correct points of view) from the equation and help the client at the thing that might be more important to him in the moment. I mean, let's say a person dies, like the suicide case above ... it's probably not the right time to mention that God doesn't exist! The client doesn't want to hear that.

But does he need to? That's a more complicated question. Again, as a philosopher, I care about the truth, and I tend to think that the truth will make the world a better place. I will tend to think that religious faith will cause this person harm at some point in the future, and the world in general. But, the client comes to you for a reason, and that's is not the right place maybe for a therapist to get involved in religious issues! I guess it's better to leave that to documentaries and education or whatnot. For example if they taught all religions at school, and the different forms they all take, and how they all have miracles, and all have conflicting beliefs, etc. etc., the students will draw their own conclusions.

Hey Alex,
can you go with the argument that if my point of view is correct for me, it is not necessarily correct for my client or for you?

Life is complex, no? How can I impose my view as correct if a faith of another human being will probably harm him on one occasion and not at the same time acknowledge that it will probably do him good on another occasion, as well?

From how I perceive life and its million single events I cannot see that one side is superior to the other side. A faith, a habit, a survival-strategy might serve me good for today and serve me not so well in the future and then all the way around. I experience life as an ongoing ever-changing process.

Do you like it when I (or someone else) does question what you believe in the most is wrong? If that is a really significant part of your identification and I do insist on my notion that you should drop it: What do you think, how will it affect you?

Teaching & education: yes, I find it good when the students can make up their own minds and not being directed at what the teacher beliefs. When they "smell" that, they stop listening.

But as we are all role models & teachers for the younger ones ... we can be a teacher for the method of open questions and not pre-determined solutions to them, as well.

Have a good evening :)

P.S. I am thinking of doing a break with blogging. So if I am not responding or visiting, you know, why.

Teaching & education: yes, I find it good when the students can make up their own minds and not being directed at what the teacher beliefs. When they "smell" that, they stop listening.

Yes, I think our education system should be geared more toward participatory learning. I find opposites are really helpful here, because opposites make everything interesting. If you teach a child something as an established fact, it becomes boring. "We know this. Humanity knows this. So why do I have to learn it? Why do I have to learn all the names of all the rivers in my country?" But if you introduce opposites, controversy, suddenly the subject becomes important, because the truth is at stake. Take the moonlanding for example. You can either teach the dry facts of the case, in which case I believe the reaction will be "who cares". Or you can introduce all the arguments of all those people who say we never went to the moon. Now suddenly you have to take sides, participate, defend your opinion, etc., it's much more like sports, and kids play sports for fun, you don't even really need to teach them much!

if my point of view is correct for me, it is not necessarily correct for my client or for you?

Well it all depends. Some things have to do with personal values and might be difficult to judge, but other things are objective facts. People might have a certain reaction when I say "God definitely does not exist and I can prove it 100%", but they will not have the same reaction when I say "Hercules doesn't exist, 100%", "Zeus does not exist, he is a fabrication", "Santa Claus is a lie". People have outgrown those beliefs, these beliefs don't offer them anything anymore, so in those cases they agree it's an objective fact, they don't even care, it's like "why are you stating the obvious?" Would those beliefs offer people some good if some people believed in them? Probably. Does believing in Santa Claus make children happier? Probably. But we have to ask ourselves if, in general, it's better to believe in lies or in truths. Of course, sometimes, lies will be helpful. But we can't make separate calculations each individual time, or for each individual person, and say "Erica will probably benefit more if she believes, Alex will benefit more if he doesn't believe, but if x happens to Erica she's probably better off not believing, and if y happens to Alex he's probably better off believing". This becomes too complicated, and we have to adopt a general rule to make life simpler, a rule like "in general, it's better to be rational all the time, even if sometimes it's really painful". Also, I don't know any research that shows that countries or eras where religion is more important than science, are happier or better off. Was Europe better during the Middle Ages? I don't think so. It's pretty clear that religion actually makes people more unhappy.


I hope you are well and that you will return! I hope it's just too much work, and not some other more serious matter.

Loading...

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?

Client-centred communication is all about taking your own interpretations out of the equation

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. ;)

The ability to listen is oft overlooked.

And it is all too easy for folks to judge without having possession of all the facts.

Sounds to me that you are a great coach and that your coachlings (nice word) are fortunate to have you.

Interesting piece.

Be well.

xox

Thank you.
Yes, the coachlings :-)

This work keeps me on the ground. A few months ago I was working with a young woman who escaped from her homeland at the age of 16. With only one backpack and a little money in her pocket. She went across mountains, where she slept in the cold outside and over the ocean, where she almost drowned. I was deeply impressed by her story and how strong she is. Unlike all the other young people I accompany, she had no nervousness before an interview. I cannot express in words how I perceived this encounter. Encouraging, all in all.

You, too stay good.

cool post! Thank you for sharing5d16f2c023b8668b384dc2e665649f39.png

Congratulations @erh.germany! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of upvotes received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Upvote this notification to help all Steemit users. Learn why here!