Re: Returning to the list

Jim Legg (income@ihug.co.nz)
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:37:01 +1300

Chris Evans wrote:

> On 29 Jan 98 at 8:02, Johnson-Cox wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > My name is Kerri Johnson and I am a returning to the list after
> > relocating and not having internet access for the last nine months.
> > Last time I wrote I requested help in finding ways to present on
> > Constructivism/Personal Construct Theory during my Master's level
> > oral exam. The ideas were wonderful and I used many of them.
> > Thanks. Since completing my internship and graduating last Spring,
> > I am now employed as a high school counselor in Lennox, South
> > Dakota. I handle the personal/social/academic counseling, while our
> > district career coordinator does most of the career
> > planning/counseling.
>
> Many congratulations on all those achievements and thanks for letting
> everyone know the list was helpful to you. I'm not a school
> counsellor but have seen similar things here. My advice, partly
> PCPish, is not to get head on to the construct system of the
> management but to present things to them in the terms they
> understand: money, pass rates, quality of passes, numbers dropping
> out, knock on costs of things going wrong. Keep it incremental as
> you're threatening their core construct system with the idea that any
> of us need anything more than psychological band aids!
>

It sounds like an extra club is needed to deflect the head on threat. I
don't think that appeasement ever works in producing a desired outcome. I
agree that the threat is real (as is hole-in-one insurance) but it can be
deflected to effect by lifting suggestions out of the learned elders
toolbox. Say to them...

"WE ARE DESTROYING THE CAUSES OF YOUR TORMENT

- money, pass rates, quality of passes, numbers dropping
out, knock on costs of things going wrong.

YOU ARE AT LIBERTY, OF COURSE, TO PRONOUNCE SENTENCE
UPON US, BUT CAN IT POSSIBLY BE A JUST ONE IF IT IS CONFIRMED
BY YOU BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY TRIAL OF WHAT WE ARE
OFFERING YOU."

In the end PCP is not about squaring of accounts and figures can't be used
to justify constructivism. It is about patterns being recognized and
remembered.

IMHO.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%