Careercounselling has been cited as one of the greatest foundations inmaintaining a growth trajectory in the human resource ladder.Coaching and consultation methods of career counselling remain themost effective in enhancing career improvement though they differgreatly. Coaching and consulting services apply different models asthey try to achieve various goals. While consulting involvesdeveloping plans that aim at improving the performance of anindividual or policy, coaching involves maximizing the potential ofan existing individual or programs and within a specific setting. Thedifferences between the two aspects prevent them from applyingconsistent models.
Consultation applies triadic, technical, collaborative, facilitative,mental health, behavioral, and process models. Inasmuch as thetriadic model is effective in developing expertise plans, a possiblemisunderstanding between the parties may ruin everything. Technicalconsultation is expected to produce aberrant results if the consulteedeceitfully picks an inexperienced consultant. In collaborativeconsultation, the results may be affected by the possibility of oneparty trying to assert its ideas over the other without giving achance for mediation. The facilitative model faces the challenge of aconsultee’s prejudice against the provided resources. The mentalhealth perspective could fail to yield better results if the clientfails to respond positively to the counselor’s actions. Thechallenge of behavioral consultation is that the consultee might failto understand the consultant’s training. The only challenge facingprocess consultation is the amount of effort required to enhance theperformance of any company.
Coaching entailsvarious models including coactive coaching and work adjustment model.In the coactive coaching model, the coach may face the challenge ofthe client failing to identify his or her strengths and weaknessesmaking it hard to maximize their potential. In this case, the clientmust be able to critically analyze his or her abilities and skills toenable the coach leverage on them to maximize the potential. Failureto identify the skills and abilities will lower the likelihood ofsuccess. In the work adjustment model, the main challenge is failureto understand the level of interaction between the interactivesubsystems and the work setting. Failure to note the level ofinteraction means that the coaching will not yield effective resultsat the end of the counselling.
In consultation,I find the collaborative model as the best method of developing anexpertise plan for career development while in coaching I find thecoactive model the most suitable. The two models appear to be basedon similar rationales as they allow the counselor and the client tocollectively discuss the available plans. However, I tend to resonatemore with the collaborative consultation than coactive coaching. Incollaborative consultation, the consultee is allowed to correct theconsultant making the end result significantly effective. Moreover,unlike in coactive coaching, collaborative consultation preventschances of the control of the discussion by one group. In coactivecoaching the client is given a chance to control the discussion asthe coach listens and corrects where necessary this may make theprocess more assertive (Denton & Hasbrouck, 2009). In coactivecoaching, there is a possibility of the client taking over thediscussion a fact which distorts the end result of the counsellingsession. Notwithstanding, the collaborative consultation allows forwide deliberations between the parties increasing the number ofoptions and alternatives available to choose from. Dealing with aclient using collaborative consultation informs him or her about thepossible methods he or she can use in the future to develop such aplan. Additionally, this model instils critical thinking in theclient allowing him or her to be more creative and innovative.
Denton, C. & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A Description of InstructionalCoaching and its Relationship to Consultation. Journal OfEducational And Psychological Consultation, 19(2),150-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474410802463296