Philosophers' Cafe
Michael Yue 在 ENET 推動和負責 Philosopher’s Café, 首個小組, 論題是" Beyond Government Contracts" (超越政府合約), 我的看法是, 絕大部分的職涯管理從業員都要依賴政府財務資助來生存和推行服務, 這題目可以有兩個意思, 一是如無政府資助, 就業輔導業還能在甚麼地方找生活? 二是接受政府資助則只能按其指示工作, 而政府的目標可能與社會或求職者的需要不同, 作為專業的就業輔導人員, 如何在限制下繼續其社會責任?
討論在九月進行, 以下是各人的意見, 討論內容由黃正心 (Louis Wong) 筆錄, 余松彬 (Michael Yue) 整理 如下:
Host: Michael Yue, Project Coordinator, Vancouver Community College
Location: SUCCESS Burnaby Office
Note taker: Louis Wong
Participants: Ronald Ma, KC Chau, Louis Wong
--
The discussion intersected with the framework provided by ENET, but also took its own course to generate some very interesting ideas about what it meant to go “beyond government contracts”. At the out start, the group agreed that most of the ENET members were likely tied to government contracts, such as Service Canada or the BC Government. We began to wonder how these practitioners could expand themselves professionally while working within the often constraining parameters of their contracts. Without a commitment to professional self-development, we did not see how these practitioners could actually go beyond government contracts.
One participant emphasized that self-development should be an integral part of career development practitioner because this is what professionalism is all about, regardless of the constraints imposed on us by government contracts. He felt that too many practitioners looked towards their organization or contract for support of their professional development, instead of charting their own course by using self-generated resources.
Another participant stressed the importance of managers taking the responsibility of supporting the professional development of their counsellors, such as negotiating strongly with the funder to provide for reasonable PD money. Even when PD money might not be enough, managers could still facilitate the PD of counsellors by giving them relief time, without which practitioners often could not attend PD events.
The question was asked whether practitioners working beyond government contracts actually showed more interest in pursuing professional development opportunities because they had to continuously add new values to their work, while those tied to government contracts might have less interest due to the rigid structure and requirements of the contracts. This was a rather “deterministic” view of career practitioners, and the group did not have consensus on this point.
Two of the participants recently collaborated in successfully publishing a book to guide immigrant professionals in their career development. Both were tied to government contracts, but decided that it was important for them to break out of the “box”. They accomplished the task while still holding a full-time job that put certain constraints on their work and development.
The group would like to encourage practitioners to take the time to review their own expertise and begin to look opportunities to share their know-how. Options included presenting in conferences, conducting workshops on ENET Training Days, writing articles to journals and bulletins, maintaining their own blogs, participating in inter-agency projects and collaborations, hosting Philosopher’s Café, etc. No one needed to do all of this, but starting with any one option would be a major step forward.
The group also realized that not everyone was indeed a self-starter. For most practitioners who were not yet very established and were tied to government contracts, they needed more support from supervisors or peers/colleagues to move one step beyond government contracts. We praised the idea of the Philosopher’s Café, but noticed that without active promotion and encouragement, it would not work for most practitioners.
Government contracts, while constraining in their own ways, also offered comfort to the practitioners (relatively speaking). And with comfort came complacency. Perhaps more creative support mechanisms were necessary to guide practitioners out of the box and see beyond government contracts (before they had no choice).
