Have we replaced compassion with competition and empathy with judgement?

Here’s a another disturbing post from an APS member who is concerned about the level of elitism and lack of professional respect and courtesy that has come in to the profession of psychology.  We think the APS should address the concerns expressed in this post …

I currently run a registered charity staffed by psychologists that offers options to clients who would probably not access private practice and can’t afford to access other services. We receive no government funding apart from the Medicare rebate for our fully registered psychologists and some block funding from the PHN for providing services in aged care.  The rest of our funding comes from fee for service for working with clients from agencies that are funded. Much of our work is pro bono, particularly the work we do with refugees, ATSI children and families, and for 18 months we worked for no charge in a large aged care facility. We see that this offers opportunities to clients that they may not otherwise have, and we also offer opportunities to four year graduates with nowhere to go.

We deliver an internship program with 19 interns and five supervisors and this internship is highly rigorous and demanding both academically and personally. We provided 150 hours of mandated training to cover what we believe the interns need to know to meet the requirements of AHPRA and we offer interns the experience of working both long term and short term with clients from pre-school age to 90+ years old. These interns work with child protection issues, suicide, serious mental health issues, indigenous and CALD clients, significant trauma including child sexual abuse (both children and adults), domestic and family violence and torture. They are also trained to provide mentoring support to indigenous staff, employee assistance to staff of a number of community organisations, design and deliver groups for children who are carers in their own families, provide input into the delivery of a therapeutic playgroup, and deliver a group program for adolescents in alternative education.

Many of our interns have first class honours and none have been able to access Masters programs. Some have been looking for years for a pathway to becoming registered as a psychologist. I  have two major issues with our current profession – we are turning out hundreds of fourth year graduates every year who don’t understand that they will probably never get registered because there are very few internships and Masters options. I think this is an ethical and moral issue and it needs to be addressed at multiple levels. The other disturbing aspect of this is that I wonder how many of these graduates turn to social work and occupational therapy as an alternative, and how many psychology jobs have been lost across the country as a result.

The second major issue I have is that I believe the interns we are training will complete their registration process with a wealth of experience and training and yet they seem to be considered second rate psychologists because of completing this pathway. They will undertake more than 1000 hours of client contact with some very difficult and challenging issues and work with some highly marginalised and vulnerable client groups.

I believe the interns who complete our program are very well trained and I am very concerned about the level of elitism and lack of professional respect and courtesy that has come in to the profession of psychology. We seem to have replaced compassion with competition and empathy with judgement. Is this reflective of a values shift in the profession? If so, I wonder how this impacts more broadly on the service system and the clients at the centre of this system.

Julie Aganoff MAPS

Executive Director

M +61 408 155 067

E julie.aganoff@changefutures.org.au


33 thoughts on “Have we replaced compassion with competition and empathy with judgement?

  1. I think there also needs to be some clarity around the ‘+2’ vs masters content. The masters includes 10+ subjects, additional seminars, placements of 1000 hours, plus a thesis. To say that masters students complete a ‘fraction’ of what those doing the +2 do is simply wrong. Then the additional 2 years of endorsement work, supervision, and further pd.

    1. RAPS is not divisive. The APS executive dividing members into camps including the Division of General Practicing Psychologists and Endorsed Clinical Psychologists and supporting unequal division of medicare funds, is Divisive. That is what must change. William stop trying to muddy the waters please and let us get on with saving our profession from greedy self interest dividing us internally.

    2. Not the point. Equivalent outcomes for equivalent work deserves equivalent recognition and pay. The evidence supports equivalent outcomes between ‘general’ and ‘endorsed’ psychologists. The false dichotomy is destroying our profession. That is the point. Not endless comparisons.

  2. I have been so busy trying to keep afloat and I am becoming frustrated with the them and us squabbling that is emerging in this debate which in my opinion is fueled by this need for some members to secure their higher status and associated funding streams.

    I wonder if this debate is being hijacked by saboteurs on a mission to discredit RAPS?

    Fellow psychologist we need to stay on course to end these disrespectful divisions. We need unity within our profession and a spill seems our only option.

    As you all know I chose the 4 + 2 “applied clinical” pathway because at that time one pursued a masters course usually if interested in research or academia ie a doctorate in a focussed area and teaching pathway and IBL positions were few and very competitive to secure. Companies and organisations invested in our development and advancement. They valued psychology for psychology, no exclusions or divisions.

    From my experience psychologists were united as a profession and we valued and respected our more senior/expert collegues from whom we learnt and they represented all areas of psychology. Something existed called “goodwill” and we shared knowledge and experience respectfully and entered into robust and productive debate.

    Psychology was psychology and our registration was our endorsement to practice in our chosen area of interest under the ongoing supervision and guidance of more senior colleagues, over time.

    We did not need to box ourselves into a specific area ie such as those of the APS colleges because our skill sets and competencies were transferrable across many areas and what we did not know we pursued via “clinical” supervision, job performance assessments, changing job roles and CPD !

    (Unlike the medical practitioner who specialises in dermatology but cannot work with neurological presentations, psychologists with specific areas of endorsement and APS college memberships can venture into other fields. Our therapeutic frameworks and areas of competencies are transferrable. This medical model of specialisation that psychology seems to have adopted in my opinion does not translate well! )

    We remained current re evidence based practices. We developed competencies from which our clients prospered.

    Membership of the APS was and is voluntary so if you chose to be affiliated with the APS you were also able to become a member of an interest group (currently college) to basically network with peers. In my opinion this was more helpful for those psychologists who were not working within teams of psychologists. Personally I did not see the value in this as I worked within multidisciplinary teams with senior psychologist across different programs so I had established meaningful professional networks.

    APS “college” membership was voluntary and not linked to funding outcomes or status as it currently, in my opinion, seems to be. It did not stop us from advancing in our chosen areas of interest and competencies.

    Psychologists were employed as Psychologists. Our advancement from probationary psychology to P1 to P2 to P3 and P 4 was via rigorous assessment within the context of ongoing industry based and demonstrated clinical experience, ie actual and real work/employment over time. Our supervision never stopped. Very few psychologist ventured into private practice and those who did established successful businesses without Medicare funding pathways.

    So one could not logically purport “specialist” expertise via jumping the band from junior to senior levels. It took many years and many thousands of hours of “clinical” experience to climb that professional ladder.

    4 + 2s were generally employed in P 1 positions for a few yrs under supervision of P 2s and the P2s supervised by P 3s and advancing to these senior positions was the pinnacle. P 3s and P 4 s were the higher eschalons, the respected and valued senior practitioners.

    So to purport that the 4 + 2+ 2 of the current master and endorsement stream equates to specialist title in my opinion dilutes the credibility and competency of our profession. It means that someone has been in the “workforce” for only a very limited time, particularly if they have entered our profession direct from VCE often joining or forming private group practices, well prepared for small business and funding streams and adopting “sales” practices at times soliciting referrals via questionable strategies, driven by the bottom line. Who is assessing such practices? “Do no harm”

    In my opinion a 4 + 2 + 2 within any psychology area of interest is not adequate experience to assert specialist title nor venture into private practice and we are not entitled to it just because we can now gain an endorsement after 2 yrs post Masters.

    Ones endorsement under AHPRA is, in my opinion, misleading.

    Times have changed and unfortunately some members in my opinion are ageist and do not value or respect the depth of knowledge and experience of some of our pioneers still in private practice.

    I vowed I would leave the profession when money became its motivating factor and unfortunately this is now emerging and dividing us.

    RAPS supporters we need to stay on course.

    1. Thank you for that very important reminder. I too have noticed an influx of Clinical shills and their minions posting misinformation and fake news on this blog, trying to distract from the very real gaps between the real world psychological healing skills passed on through the 4 + 2 pathway and decades of experience, compared to the limited textbook learning depended on by “other” pathways. I also do not think it is a coincidence that these paid lobbyists appear as soon as the greater abuses of the clinical clique (attacks on generalists voting against their wishes at the EGM, sending young lobbyists to sway votes of male psychologists) are brought to public awareness. Brave little RAPS, fighting the good fight against the massive corporate Clinical Machine. I am glad my donation helps the David of the psychological world battle the APS Goliath.

      1. Hi Tanya,

        I have been reading your comments with curiosity, mainly due to their highly inflammatory nature and mocking undertones. Why can’t I shake the feeling that you are set on trying to undermine the true objectives of this initiative?

        1. Tia, an interesting comment coming from someone who recently stated as fact that “For the past 10 years (probably a bit longer), emerging Clinical Psychologists have been indoctrinated to believe that their skills are far superior to the rest of us”. I also note with interest that when I opened up about how as a Clinical Masters student, how upsetting it was hearing such comments directed at us come from established respected psychologists, your response was to accuse me of “gaslighting”, saying I was showing symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder and claimed it was in reality I who was mistreating psychologists like Dr James Alexander after he declared all Clinical Psychologists to be “Coldhearted” and “Ruthless”.

          1. Hi J Dwyer, Ivanka Trump and whatever other aliases you have been commenting under. 😉

            Anything taken out of context can be depicted however one wants. James cold hearted comment was about the friend in my anecdote, not all clinical psychologist. I certainly never accused you of gaslighting or suggested you suffered from NPD – I was making a comparison to that type of behaviour, because when I prompted yourself and others (or maybe the others are also you?) to empathise with our predicament, your response was to only reflect on how you’ve been impacted by these comments, without any acknowledgement of how the rest of us have been hurting for years. It was an analogy, not a statement of fact!

            I am truly sorry if you have personally been impacted by some of my comments here, and I hope you can also appreciate how I have also been impacted by some comments that have denigrated the quality of my work because of the training I have had.

            There are several comments of mine that have explicitly objected to the ongoing denigration of Clinical Psychologists in general. It is a real shame that the Medicare debacle has pitted our profession one against the other and I think you can see how we are all losing here.

            I made the decision today to no longer allow myself to get dragged into the divisive debate, but rather focus on the real issues we face and what solutions we need. I welcome a healthy and honest debate with you on how we can all move forward and repair the fractures in our profession.

            1. Oh no, you have discovered that I did not feel comfortable posting under my own name until recently, “Tia”! Do you think that had anything to do with the constant barrage of attacks made against me and every other person who dared to earn the wrath of you and your fellow RAPS supporters by being so imprudent as to enroll in a Masters of Clinical Program? Thank you though for telling me that such comments by yourself as “For the past 10 years (probably a bit longer), emerging Clinical Psychologists have been indoctrinated to believe that their skills are far superior to the rest of us” or Dr Alexander’s comments about clinical psychologists being heartless were just “taken out of context”. I think it is obvious that you share the same public sentiments of Geoffrey Goodluck that all Masters students are bumbling incompetents who spend their time stumbling over their textbooks. I also think it is interesting that you openly attacked clinical psychologists when it was just students like myself and Cate defending them, but you suddenly backtrack and feign respect as soon as actual psychologists like Jo Smith join the blog. It speaks volumes that RAPS supporters like yourself only feel comfortable punching down at students.

              1. Hi J Dwyer,

                I offered you an olive branch and invited a constructive dialogue between us. The fact that you have chosen instead to continue personally attacking me says more about you than it does about me.

                I’m quite confident in what i have written and I know that I personally have not once attacked students or Clinical Psychologists generally; so please don’t put words in my mouth or twist my words to suit your agenda.

                If you scroll down this very thread, you will note my reply to Curious where I explicitly stated I disagree with the denigration of Clinical Psychologists as a group. I also explicitly defended students in response to Tanya Emerson’s (is that also you?) comment about clinical students being a risk to clients in the ‘no options for 4+2’ thread.

                Is it a fact that recent graduates have been led to believe their training is superior? Of course it is. Recent graduates only know a world where their training affords them a higher status. Even if this belief is implicit, that doesn’t make it any less real.

                Let’s remove all 4+2 graduates, such as myself, from the equation and focus only on other Specialists, for the sake of this point – when a higher rebate was introduced for Clinical Psychologists to the exclusion of other psychologists, irrespective of their commensurate advanced postgraduate training, the implicit message is that Clinical training is worth more.

                This is a flaw inherent in the current system, not the players themselves. Though there are clearly some players who apparently have consciously embraced this message. Case in point – Angelique (or is that you again?) explicitly stated that even with a bridging course, the exact same standards of a Clinical Masters could never be reached. How would you define that statement?

                Whilst I pride myself in my powers of observation, I sadly don’t possess psychic abilities! I have no way of knowing which commentators are students or experienced psychologists – e.g.. I was under the impression Cate has been registered for years, as her comments claimed?! And with no disrespect to Jo Smith intended, I have no idea who she is nor am I concerned with her opinion of me. I have changed my approach because I’d rather redirect these conversations towards solutions.

                Alas, you seem determined to perpetuate the animosity! If you get tired of that, I would still welcome a constructive discussion with you on how do we best heal this rift. My preliminary thoughts on this can be found further down this thread…

                1. Here is your unedited comment again, with no twisting or misquoting:

                  ““For the past 10 years (probably a bit longer), emerging Clinical Psychologists have been indoctrinated to believe that their skills are far superior to the rest of us”

                  I’ll let others judge for themselves whether that is an attack on students or not. I will also let others who of us truly fits this accusation you directed at me:

                  “But seriously, your comment sounds a little like the gas lighting one can expect from a narcissistic mother or friend, who when pulled up on how they are mistreating others, comes back with “how can you say that to me…now look how upset you are making me feel!”

                  1. Dear JD,

                    If you are going to trouble yourself with quoting me to prove your point, you should at least quote me in full… 🙂

                    ‘Ivanka, are you serious? Please tell me where is this ‘respect’ you speak of, because it certainly hasn’t made itself apparent in the comments I am referring to?!
For the past 10 years (probably a bit longer), emerging Clinical Psychologists have been indoctrinated to believe that their skills are far superior to the rest of us, despite our years of experience (as several comments have pointed out) so I’m finding it a bit hard to connect with this vision of new graduates who look up to me.
I wholeheartedly agree that it is not right for each side to tear each other apart the way it has been happening and I do believe that we are all worthy of respect and empathy. I believe the greatest cost of this whole Medicare debacle has been the unity and integrity of our profession in this country!
But seriously, your comment sounds a little like the gas lighting one can expect from a narcissistic mother or friend, who when pulled up on how they are mistreating others, comes back with “how can you say that to me…now look how upset you are making me feel!”


                    1. Thanks for admitting you made that you did make those personal attacks on both an individual psychology student, and on Masters students in general. Thank you also for highlighting that you made a single sentence statement feigning respect for students … after which you immediately accused a student of gaslighting and narcissistic traits to avoid actually acknowledging the issues she raised.

            2. Stay the course and set the agenda. Don’t get guilt tripped into defending and submerging your position. Keep it clear and present. Don’t appeal for compassion to those who show no mercy. The way for unity is to end the Apartheid.

              1. Thank you Gregory. So many are jumping bandwagons now and becoming clinical shills as soon as the clinicals are making their presence known here, We need good men like you to stand up and say no more to the Clinical Arpartheid campaign.

  3. How about we stop all the judgements against clinical psychologists e.g. “book trained”. William is correct in saying that the training is not equal in the sense that people do 4+2 whereas clinical psychologist to 4+2+2 and the last three years of that is in placements and work experience not just book training. that is part of the issue it is not confusing the issue.

  4. Hi Julie,

    What an amazing program you have put together for your interns and it sounds like an incredible experience to springboard them into their careers!

    I absolutely agree with your sentiments and I believe that the APS and the PBA are equally complicit in creating this toxic chasm in our profession. My concern is that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg and that trouble runs much deeper for Generalists.

    Case in point the National Psychology Exam – can anyone please explain to me why Masters and DPsyc graduates are exempt from the examination until 2019? I noted in the APS submission to APAC regarding the bridging courses that they advocated all Registered Psychologists wishing to apply to a Bridging course should also require to sit the exam, even after years of practice.

    A DPsyc colleague of mine (who is not an APS member) recently told me that there has long been an agenda to get rid of all generalists completely – perhaps that is the true purpose of the exam? To slowly choke out that alternative until the number of clinical psychologists overtakes the majority and they can do away with the rest of us for good?

    What a frightening prospect!

  5. What a sad state of affairs it is when trained psychologists with 150 hours of training and 1000 of client contact are marginalized, while “clinical” masters students are automatically provided with the superior Medicare rebate with a fraction of the same training.

    1. This is not true. Clinical Masters graduates need to obtain a further two years of supervised practice (registrar training) before they are “Clinical Psychologists” which means that to be a clinical psychologist is 4 + 2 + 2 = 8 years of training and practice. The higher medicare rebate is only available after this.

      1. I see the clinical lobbyists has come with their usual tricks to confuse the real issues with technicalities. The real question is why are perfectly good “generalist” psychologists with 150 hours of training and 1000 hours of placement time not considered as more valuable then book trained “clinical” students who have far less training and time spent working with real clients???

        1. There are no tricks here. This is because you do not understand that the amount of extra training (i.e. on top of the Masters training already completed) required for endorsement (including counselling, health etc) is 3080 hours. Therefore to call themselves ‘clinical’ or any other endorsement they first have to complete the Masters (which includes 1000 placement hours) at which point they too are a generalist psychologist, and THEN do this 3080 hours plus extra supervision and PD hours. This means that to call themselves ‘clinical’ they have completed at least 4080 hours. If I follow your argument I’m not sure why a generalists 1000 hours should be more valuable than a clinical’s 4080 hours?

          1. Hi Curious, you make a great point which highlights the deep complexities of the issue.

            Whilst it is undeniable that the generation of clinical psychologists post medicare have in fact had more involved training, these arguments will likely keep flaring up because this mess straddles 2 generations of psychologists, whose training have in fact been very different.

            The root cause of all this acrimony resides in the fact that when the 2 tier system was introduced, Clinical Psychologists and all others only had to demonstrate the same core skills to be eligible to practice, so the gap in training was in fact much smaller then – ie. we all completed the same amount of supervised practice hours roughly, plus additional training and had to meet the exact same criteria for registration.

            The 2 core issues I see that got us to this point are that:-
            1. No adequate transitional arrangements were made to accommodate practitioners that were already registered under the same criteria and the fact that seemingly overnight, Clinicals were given a financial advantage for no reason other than the fact that they had the ‘right’ qualifications – this was always going to end badly.

            The second issue is the obvious fact that, as you quite rightly point out, post Medicare, all Endorsed psychologist are required to complete a large amount of additional training hours to attain their endorsement, however only 1 cohort is able to benefit from the additional training – this perpetuates the first problem.

            Having said that, I personally disagree with all comments that imply our Clinical colleagues are inexperienced/unworthy and I feel these types of arguments detract from the real issues.

            1. Hi Tia,

              I couldn’t agree more. It is my belief (for what it’s worth) that most people within the profession (including clinicals) have empathy for those who have been disadvantaged due to the history of this issue and would like to see real solutions to this problem including but not limited to bridging programs, recognition of prior learning and experience etc. They also have empathy for members of non-clinical colleges who are unfairly disadvantaged.

              It would be great if there could be constructive conversations with suggested solutions rather than some of the divisive ‘us and them’ comments thrown around within this forum.

              1. Hi Curious,

                I wholeheartedly agree! Having been guilty of getting dragged into the more divisive side of the debate, I admit I am starting to get exhausted by this focus.

                We all know what the issues are and how we got here. I agree that our energy would be much better spent discussing viable solutions to redress these imbalances. I also believe we will be much more successful at lobbying for change if we can go to the ‘powers that be’ with solutions in mind.

                Personally, I am very open to completing any type of bridging like training necessary to close the perceived gap, if it becomes available; though I can understand why others oppose this idea.

                Perhaps a good place to start might be recognising prior experience for psychologists that were already registered prior to the introduction of Medicare? And scaling Bridging Programs for those who fell in the gap between the introduction of Medicare and the inception of Endorsements?

                What are your thoughts on the above? What do others think might be some viable solutions?

        2. Why is someone who corrects a misleading statement a “clinical lobbyist”? The demonizing and scapegoating of “clinicals” is unhelpful, and obfuscates real issues.

          I have worked as a general and clinical psychologist, and supervise both, and so am well aware of unhelpful practices , such as reports being refused by organisations because they were not written by clinical psychologists, but may have been prepared by psychologists with relevant skills and experience and higher levels of expertise, and of opportunistic organisations imposing different fees payable to different types of psychologists.

          I am not a supporter of the RAPS approach though, as it is divisive and scapegoats. The disdain expressed for not only clinical, but academic and early career psychologists for example is counterproductive. Also, the focus on removing the higher medicare rebate comes across more as sour grapes than trying to redress injustice, as it will result in lower rebates and less bulk billing for clients, and impact negatively on future psychologists, as the future is likely going to mean higher levels of training for psychologists to be up with other countries, and less of an apprentice style (4+2) approach. The reality is that it is increasingly difficult for 4 year university graduates (who have little to no therapeutic training or experience) to find 2 year positions that provide the level of exposure to clients and presentations that a clinical program provides. It may not be fair, but it is the situation.

          General Psychologists who have received quality training years ago are being discriminated against and their expertise is being ignored or worse, and this is something that needs to be addressed, but if these same psychologists want to redress this by demonizing clinical, academic and early career psychologists, and, anyone who disagrees is attacked as a “clinical lobbyist”, and our professional organisation is subject to the attacks it is under, our profession is in even more trouble.

          76% of votes supported the recent APS governance changes. This was not a win by “clinicals” and their minions as presented, but as RAPS keeps reminding us – must have also been by a large variety of psychologists, as according to RAPS, only 30% of members are clinical. Populist approaches such as scapegoating, misinformation and creating division are counterproductive to addressing real issues negatively affecting those who have been disenfranchised, and mean that people like myself will not support RAPS.

          1. RAPS is not divisive. The APS executive dividing members into camps including the Division of General Practicing Psychologists and Endorsed Clinical Psychologists and supporting unequal division of medicare funds, is Divisive. That is what must change. William stop trying to muddy the waters please and let us get on with saving our profession from greedy self interest dividing us internally.

    1. There are clinical psychologist who have never done a masters degree or Ph.D. but happened to be in the endorsed clique at the time of AHPRA taking on the role of regulator. They were grandfathered in during a brief window of opportunity. Presumably because they have superior experience. Like alot of non clinical masters psychologists who are not endorsed as clinical psychologists who also have alot of experience, which the clinical folk on this blog seem to be at pains to denigrate.

      1. Thank you Gregory for standing up for us while the Clinicals use this page to constantly attack us and our training.

      2. I agree with William that denigrating all clinical psychologists is not helpful. Over the years I have worked with and been supervised by both clinical psychs, generalists and counsellors and have encountered many great professionals. Currently my main supervisors are a social worker and a clin psych – they are both experts in their fields and totally wonderful. I am in a peer group supervision with mixed psychs, social workers and counsellors. They all leave me in awe of the skilled clinical work they do with challenging clients for the NGO we work with.
        I feel it is more helpful to critique the practices and policies of the APS, than criticize clin psychs or other professionals.
        I do want to point out though that it is not so simple as saying that generalist psychs are 4 plus 2 trained and clin psychs are 4 +2+2 trained. It seems that that is portrayed all the time – but it isn’t the case. Many ‘generalist psychs’ (whatever that means) can have highly relevant masters degrees, research doctorates in a very relevant clinical area etc as well as the 4 +2 program (which is now taking many people a lot longer than 4+2 with increased internship requirements, anyway!) And there are also many clinical psychs who certainly do NOT have the 4+2+2 program.
        We need to stop perpetuating the myth that it is as simple as a 4+2 or a 4+2+2.
        I think there is a push for everyone to be 8 year trained (and I am not saying this will automatically mean we will be better therapists, but I still think that push is there and is not going away). Given the complexity and diversity of the training and experience among all psychologists (including those in the clinical college) then we need the APS to play a lead role in lobbying and advocating for and even establishing systems which realistically look at EVERYONE’S training and develop a bridging course approach to ensure everyone is 8 year trained, even if that is in a more diverse manner than a clin psych masters.
        I think the two tiered medicare system is divisive, as is the structure of the APS (as Gregory points out) and it is good for RAPS to focus on this. However it would also be good to focus on the issue of training in Australia and the role of APS in this. I have to say I am itching to do more training. I would love to have more diverse masters or PhDs in psychology available, or good quality ‘bridging courses’, perhaps leading to a degree of some sort, as I value continuous learning and like study – but there is so little available to suit people with years of experience and lots of pre-existing training. We also need the APS to do more about this.
        However in my years of membership they talk about this, but nothing happens. I have renewed this year as I am wanting to vote, but next year I am thinking of not renewing as it seems the APS is meaningless to me. Things I want or need are never progressed.

        1. Hi Kate,

          I second absolutely everything you have said! Whilst I understand why several colleagues oppose the idea of pursuing more training at this stage in their careers, I personally am also extremely keen to take up any opportunities that become available to further my learning.

          However, as you quite rightly point out, there is a major lack of accessible pathways to help those of us who want to continue advancing our training to pursue that goal and for me at least, part of the change agenda must include this as a solution to the problems we face.

Leave a Reply