|
Hi, Steve:
Whenever I see a training announcement like this, I reflect on why I’m not in the MINT after getting first rate training in it from several MINT trainers in the past. Right off the top, the most likely reasons are that I am not much of a joiner in the first place, but in the second, I could never understand why a 2-3 day face- to- face training qualified one for the MINT but an extended supervised training via a distance environment did not. After all, for slow learners like me, the latter seemed ideal, not to mention the plus of having ongoing supervision, even from a distance, over a longer haul than 2-3 days. So I pretty much practiced on my own, with profound results that I fully attribute more to the power of the therapy than my particular skill. It really is the most difficult—and rewarding—approach I have ever used.
Having said that, I’m deeply concerned about how MI is being manipulated in some quarters. I have experienced MINT trainers who identify themselves as “MINT certified” even when faced with website data that confirms that MINT as an organization does not certify trainers. I have experienced MINT trainers and/or their marketers try to snatch MI trainees from other non-MINT MI training venues because the former’s trainer was supposedly “certified” by MINT.
Licensed doctoral level professionals mandating that their staff assimilate MI skills without question (lowers the risk of litigation, don’t ya know…). Bureaucrats who don’t know MI from the man on the moon mandating MI interventions to avoid paybacks. I fear that institutionalized MI is poisoning the (for me) quite sacred MI well…
Where am I going wrong, Steve? And what needs to be done? |