I would like to discuss briefly two models of coaching or counseling people. The dominant approach to helping people is what I call the "change" model. As exemplified in clinical and social psychology, professionals using the change model assess what they think is wrong with their clients and then try to fix it by using cognitive, psychodynamic, or behavioral change methods. They promise greater happiness and success. In contrast, I favor the "Good Fit" model. We try to figure out who our clients are and then match them to relationships, jobs, school situations, etc., where they can thrive as they are, without being changed.
The idea of helping people by matching them to situations where they can thrive has been around for a while and was favored by the prevention approach of the community psychology movement of the 1970s. The general rap on the model is that it has limited effectiveness. I think this is because past attempts at matching were based on personality theories, rather than on motivation theory. I think the motivational methods of those who have applied my work to business, schools, and sports is working on three continents.
The problem with the change model is that it underestimates individuality and often ends up trying to change people to become who the therapist or coach wants them to be, not who they want to be. The clients resist change because it goes against their deepest values and doesn't give them what they want, not because (as Freud mistakenly thought) their unconscious mind is resisting. By nature we are individuals to a much greater extent than many realized.
For example, we all care about our relationships with peers, but not in the same way. Some people learn social skills so they can have many more social experiences than society considers normative, while others learn what I call "grouch skills" to keep people at a distance so they can enjoy quiet privacy and solitude. Grouchiness isn't a failure to learn social skills nor some unconscious hostility. It is an intrinsic valuation of privacy. Trying to change the grouch to be friendly goes againt the grain in much the same way as would trying to change a friendly person to be a grouch. Instead of trying to turn a grouch in a smoothie, coaches should encourage them to choose jobs and life situation that have minimal social demands.
We trust our feelings above all else, but this leads to misunderstanding of people who are very different from us. The saver never enjoys spending, so he/she thinks spending leads to unhappiness, and that saving is the way to live. The opposite applies to the spender, who never enjoyed saving. When each trusts their own feelings, in process I call self-hugging and everyday tyranny, the saver tries to change the spender and vice versa. The saver thinks spenders can improve their personality by learning to spend less and not be spendthrifts. The spender thinks savers can improve themselves by learning to buy more things and not be tightwads. Each tries to change the other to be like themself.
The 16 basic desires provide a basis for matching people to situations where they can thrive as they are, without being changed. I don't have anything against changing people to become the person they want to be, but I think this is very difficult to do. I understand that mental health professionals and their therapies are needed when people have certain mental illnesses. But I am talking about adjustment issues and personality problems. Psychologists have oversold how easily or effectively they can help such people change and self-improve. Helping these people match to careers, specific jobs, relationships, school situation, specific athletic situations, etc. is more achievable and less costly. To match effectively, however, you need to do so based on motives and values.
