In the past I have counseled several soldiers while in the military.
Many people think that this is different than a counselor/counselee setting that
people would normally think of. Usually when people think of counseling they
think of a traditional office with a psychologist; not a soldier setting.
Counseling soldiers is a very formal process and much like the process of
counseling in the "normal" setting. There are event oriented counseling which is
if something good or bad happens in the soldiers life and there are monthly
counselings that occurs every month. With either counseling type the soldier
sets goals and the leader also usually sets some goals depended on the
weaknesses noticed. Each month these goals are reviewed to check progress
toweard those goals.
Since being out of the military I have had the opportunity to counsel people
more in an informal way. By this, I mean that there are people that I have come
across, such as at the homeless shelter that will open up to me and ask for
advice. In all of these situations I have found that it is better to facilitate
personal goals of the counselee. Kollar states that, "Clients are the experts on
what they want to change as well as in determining what they want to work on"
(Kollar, 2011, Kindle Loc. 1266). In most cases if the counselee is directed
toward goals by the counselor they will not take ownership of it and usually
will not do the work needed toward that goal. I believe that when the counselee
sets the goals they will be more likely to work toward them and then the
counselor's job is to facilitate and check for the benchmarks of working toward
those goals. Follow up, Follow up, Follow up!
As far during the counseling session, I also take try to take the middle road
of confrontation. I believe that issues should be addressed, but there should
also be a middle ground for confrontation. McMinn calls this middle ground
emphatic confrontation. He also states that, "When counselors confront too
often, too directly, or without establishing adequate trust, clients will
distant themselves from the counseling process and progress will be inhibited"
(McMinn, 2011, Kindle Loc. 2864). Again, the focus of counseling should be the
counselee and what they need and what they want to work toward. This goes back
to the counselee being the expert.
Example: When it comes to financial counseling with a premarital couple, it
should be more of a "guiding" principle taken. I believe the safest approach is
to teach the couple what a budget is, how to make a budget, and ask them to work
on that budget together. Working on the budget together can be a homework
assignment that the counselor can check at the next session. This will not seem
too direct from the counselor and the couple will be able to work together for
the first time (usually the first time) on a better financial future. While
working on the budget together they will identify their weaknesses and
strenghts. If a more direct approach is taken the couple may seem more reluctant
to work on the budget and may not work on one at all. A direct approach may be
pulling out a budget sheet and telling the couple to work on it during the
session while watching over them. The best approach in counseling is to
facilitate the goals of the counselee and while counseling communication should
be some where in the middle of indirect and direct.
References:
Kollar, Charles Allen. (2011). Solution focused pastoral counseling: an
effective short-term approach for getting people back on track. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
McMinn, Mark R. (2011). Psychology, theology, and spirituality in
christian counseling. Carol Stream, Illinois: Tynadale House.
No comments:
Post a Comment