The following contribution is intended for open discussion. To read current comments and/or add your own, click the “comments” link that appears at the bottom of this post.
********************************************************
Models for Integrative Advising
There are many obstacles to doing integrative planning that truly covers all the domains that are potentially critical for any given client (money, health, career, relationships, attitudes, living arrangements, meaning, etc.). I’m wondering what people think is the best way — in theory, at least — to operate one’s practice so that this is possible. Here are some possibilities, and I’d love to hear back from you about your thoughts, and your experiences in this regard. I hope that later this year, we will do an article in the Integrative Adviser on this topic, so your thoughts can have more of an impact. We will credit everyone who responds.
Model #1: The network of expert referrals. The advisor is an expert in one domain, but is not highly knowledgeable about the others. When an issue arises in one of the other domains, the advisor refers the client to other experts. If this model is used, does it work well? How much, if any, communication should there be about the client between or among the experts? Should referrals be done as a courtesy, or for a fee?
Model #2: The holistic organization. Similar to Model #1, but experts of several (or ideally all) kinds are housed within the same practice. Referrals are always within the practice, except in special cases. Is anyone doing it this way now? If so, what are its strengths and drawbacks?
Model #3: The general practitioner. The advisor is NOT an expert in any one area, but is the equivalent of a medical GP. The advisor has training in ALL the domains and is capable of dealing with commonplace problems in all of them. The advisory “general practitioner” is also qualified to know when more specifialized help is needed, and routinely refers out to specialists in the various planning and care domains. I am not sure if anyone is using this model now (do many life coaches see themselves this way?) — but in any case, does it sound like a good idea or a bad one?
Model #4: The advisory para-professional. This advisor is not professionally trained in any area, and has only modest knowledge of them. But using some rigorous diagnostic tool (a kind of detailed “state of life” questionnaire, or some software that is much more thorough than anything currently available), the para-professional could identify problem areas, and suggest generally useful solutions, other resources (books, websites, national or local organizations), or other more professional advisors. Could such a model be useful in making integrative planning available to the middle- and lower-income demographic?
What are your thoughts about these models? Do you have ideas about other possible models?
********************************************************
All submissions will be reviewed and approved within approximately one day.
