These requests regarding degree earned do not, of course, guarantee competence; however, when faced with addressing a stressful condition, a prospective client/patient will look for anything that reduces their stress and offers assurance of competency. Physical appearance is important. It is not just a diploma on the wall or an impressive resume. There is also the matter of an office that is filled with high-quality furniture—and perhaps a coach. The resume should be printed on fine paper if provided in person. It should be well-organized and free of spelling or grammatical mistakes when delivered either in person or digitally submitted. These are superficial matters that relate not at all to the services being presented—yet these matters are important in setting the stage for the psychologist’s display of expertise.
These superficial conditions are even more important to establish for those without doctorates who are providing human services. The client/patient is looking for anything that will assuage their anxiety about putting their life (or at least their psyches) in the hands of another human being. Diplomas should still be put on the wall (even if not doctoral), and degrees awarded should still appear on the resume. There might also be a statement describing the unique nature of the degree and license that were achieved. Certifications are to be displayed, and initials placed after one’s name (even if no one is quite certain what these initials stand for).
Containing the Anxiety
Beyond the initial impression of expertise and competence comes the provision of an anxiety container of anxiety by the provider, be this person a psychologist, psychiatrist or clinical social worker. It is critical that the setting in which these services are provided is safe and conducive to the open exploration of new ideas and insights. If the services being provided are likely to increase levels of anxiety (at least for a certain period). Many years ago, Riane Eisler wrote of the role played by a Chalice (versus a sword) in constructive human interactions. The chalice holds and contains the anxiety (as well as the hopes) inherent in any relationship. We offer a chalice when being attentive to another person’s needs, when appreciative of their strengths and moments of success, and when helping the other person lean and learn into the future.
More concretely, psychologists and other human service providers establish a container and chalice when setting up appropriate boundaries with their clients/patients. This often means establishing a time boundary (e.g., 50-minute hour), when providing services in an enclosed/confidential space and when ensuring that their role in working with a client/patient is constrained (e.g., no sexual relations with client/patient). Even more basically, the human services provider is expected to listen to and respect their client. In recent years, this basic requirement has been reinforced and brought to a focus by those therapists and consultants who engage in narrative therapy (e.g., David Drake) and appreciative consultations (e.g., David Cooperrider).
Even more fundamentally, there is the expectation on the part of clients/patients that their human service provider is an “expert” regarding ethics. In a VUCA-Plus world, the rules might not always be easy to follow. Ethical behavior is often not easy to engage. For instance, is it ever appropriate to meet with a consulting client for a cup of coffee? What should be done if the therapist encounters their client/patient at a movie theater or restaurant? Do they just ignore one another? And what about the client/patient who brings in a slice of the apple pie they just baked—is this appropriate? Can the school counsellor attend their client’s graduation party (they having been instrumental in helping this young person complete their coursework)? It is quite understandable that Pope and Vasquez (2016) devote chapters in their book on ethics to such topics as “ethical judgement under uncertainty and pressure: critical thinking about heuristics, authorities and groups” and “logical fallacies in Ethical Reasoning.”
