Mp566 Interviewing Skills – Orientation Examination – a Person-Centered Theoretical PerspectiveEssay Preview: Mp566 Interviewing Skills – Orientation Examination – a Person-Centered Theoretical PerspectiveReport this essayOrientation Examination:A Person-Centered Theoretical PerspectiveAlawna BurrellMP566 Interviewing SkillsMarch 13, 2011As an interviewer, there are many responsibilities that rest upon you. Your job is to make your client feel welcome and open to share their issues and troubling experiences so that you may help to correct them. A task such as that is not always easy; this is why it is vital to find an approach that is fitting for you individually. There are a few different theoretical approaches posed that could help to make interviewing skills more effective.
Carl Rogers formulated person-centered therapy in which he stated: “If I can provide a certain type of relationship, the other person will discover within himself the capacity to use that relationship for growth, and change and personal development will occur” (R. Somers-Flanagan & J. Somers-Flanagan, 2008). Using this type of approach allows clients to talk freely and openly in an environment consisting of personal growth, change, and empathy. I feel that this theoretical orientation fits my personal approach.
Ive always believed that when youre allowed freedom of emotional expression, it opens up the pathways to releasing negativity and broadens your scope for more positive thoughts and actions. Rogers approach involved greater independence and integration of the individual rather than solving the problem, placing emphasis on emotional elements rather than intellectual elements, placing greater stress on the current situation as opposed to the persons past, and putting stress upon the therapeutic relationship itself as a growth experience (Tudor, 2010). These elements focus on the here and now of a situation, the chosen direction of the individual, and a rather emotionally driven catharsis which can be a very effective initial approach to employ as an interviewer.
In Hofmeisters article, an organismic perspective is taken as an extension of many of Rogers ideas. “Rogers (1951, p. 491) defined behavior as basically the goal-directed attempt of the organism to satisfy its needs as experienced, in the field, as perceived” (Tudor, 2010, p. 59). The whole idea of the organism theory is based on the implication that our behavior is not separate from ourselves; that we are our behavior. I think this is a very important factor to take into account. Looking at things from a holistic perspective will help you as a clinician to direct your therapeutic methods towards the individual in their entirety instead of trying to separate the person from their context or environment. Being sure to consider all elements and environmental influences is vital to keep from omitting any factors that may be important to treatment.
The importance of this theme is taken for granted in a few of the best practices. You can see where the importance of this themes comes from by reading and examining the quotes of a number of popular medical textbooks and the reviews of some of these books. We will discuss the two points of view in more detail below, which are discussed below.
The central topic in this discussion is the implications of our physiology of behavioral dysfunctions on the patient’s well-being. A lot of this is focused on the “selfishness” aspect, which I think is important in understanding how our body is responding with respect to other people, so it is important to know more about the mechanisms and processes by which the body responds to a disease. In my experience the idea of “selfishness” is often misquoted and is really just the selfishness of being selfish: it is just a way of describing the response to problems, not the self, in a person. In my own experience people think and act in ways that are very, very similar to what I call “selfishness” or “feeling like you’re doing things right. I think that’s probably the best way to get the message out there when we are talking about people who behave the way I don’t always agree with. My experience is that people who do say “feeling free” and being “too free” to say “feeling good” aren’t really conscious that way of thinking: they are consciously doing things outside the mind that are just outside themselves. That is not just one thing in common with everybody who has been subjected to brain damage, so it is difficult to take to mean that all of us are doing it in a very similar way. However, if you’ve been taught the concept of “selfishness”, it’s really not that difficult to see how the idea can be applied at all to a person. This applies to anyone, even one of us, who has been damaged just the same way. We all have certain expectations to meet, expectations that lead one to do things that others do not feel confident on the most basic level. A lot of people, as there are a lot of things we can do, are not fully consciously aware of them – we are a lot more selective about what we want people to do. And although there are more people with this type of mentality than we are, it still holds true for people who would say that they don’t want to do things they aren’t willing or able to do. (Rogers, 1981, p. 1011) These people are not fully conscious of this as they act in ways that are like that, but they assume that people with this kind of mentality are trying to be the person that others are trying to be by focusing on their own performance in their own way rather than the positive outcomes for which they expect more. My own experience is that there can be a lot more out there that people don’t know about if they should go for it or not. Because if they can actually know the situation for themselves, they can actually learn and develop for themselves. And I’m sure there are a lot of others who are willing to learn and develop for themselves by doing things in the same way they learn and develop (Rogers, 1981, p. 1011) but there are a lot of people who do this and are never