Abstract of Taylor Doctoral Dissertation 2012

Unfinished Business: A Study of Leadership and Adaptive Challenges in the Professionalization of Funeral Directors

By Jacquelyn Taylor, PhD

 Introduction

  The study covered a variety of events in funeral service over nearly 50 years beginning in the mid-1960s. It demonstrated that attempts to attain a clear professional identity for funeral directors have been thwarted by repeated failure to respond effectively to adaptive challenges. Three constructs recur throughout the decades: Failed attempts to control the public perception of funeral directors; a gap between industry leaders and those led; and persistent internal contradictions, conflict, and confusion over values.

It is a historical fact that funeral directors have always aspired to professional status. At the first annual convention of the National Funeral Directors Association in 1882, the Secretary, S. R. Lippincott, offered the following assessment and injunction:

Up to the present time…we have been but a loose aggregation of individuals in no way united for a common purpose. Hereafter we shall be a conservative central force that will unite and control to a certain extent, the discordant elements among us, and save our profession from disintegration and disgrace. (Lamers, 1981, p. 1)

A century and a half later, it is clear that funeral directors have not attained this lofty objective; and it begs the question as to what prevented them from doing so? The professional sovereignty coveted by funeral directors has eluded them. The result is continued ambiguity about their role which has a high cost not only to the occupational group but to society as a whole. Without professional status, funeral directors are less able to join the other professional groups that help citizens navigate death, dying, and bereavement. The contradiction between the stated aspiration of becoming a profession and the reality that it has not happened must be resolved. The ultimate goal of the study was to provide a catalyst for an unprecedented type of dialogue among death care practitioners during which they can finally develop a definitive, collective response to the question of whether or not they should pursue full professional credentials.

Statement of the Problem

  As the 21st century unfolds, American funeral practices are undergoing seismic change. This is evidenced by the fact that with startling velocity citizens are rejecting the traditional funeral and opting instead for minimalist disposition of the body, usually in the form of cremation without obsequies. This is an important cultural phenomenon that Weeks (2001) called “ritualistic downsizing.” He suggested a certain naiveté of proponents:

What these death ritual abolitionists failed to realize is that there is a need for rituals whenever an important event occurs in life…Without death or funerary rituals we may very well feel that a person never lived. When there are no death or funerary rituals, important links between our past, our present, and our future are broken. (p. 189)

But the trend continues despite the psychosocial importance of funerals having been affirmed repeatedly (Aries, 1981; Becker, 1973; Canine, 1999; Doka, 1984; Feifel,1959; Fulton, 1965, 1971, 1976, 1979; Gorer,1965; Grollman,1997; Habenstein & Lamers, 1963, 2001; Irion, 1991; Jackson, E., 1963; Klass, D., Silverman, P., & Nickman, S., 1996; Laderman,1996, 2003; Lindemann,1944; Paul, 1997; Pine, 1975; Rando,1984; Weeks, 2001; Wolfelt,1994, Worden, 1991).

This emerging social phenomenon is significantly impacting funeral directors who have, up to this point, been central to the death care process. Throughout most of the history of America, funerals adhered to a standardized form which consisted of a primarily religious event with the body present that culminated most often in earth burial. This is what is known as the “traditional funeral” and funeral directors were integral to the orchestration of these events. But increasingly, citizens are opting for “simple” or “direct” disposition in which the body is disposed of as quickly and economically as possible, most often by cremation. When cremation is selected, if a ceremony is held at all, it is likely to be a buoyant celebratory event without the body present and often without funeral director or clergy involved. Long (November, 2009) captured the essence of this phenomenon with a note of disdain:

 For the first time in history, the actual presence of the dead at their own funerals has become optional, even undesirable, lest the body break the illusion of a cloudless celebration, spoil the meditative mood and reveal the truths about grief, life and death that our thinned-out ceremonies cannot bear. (p. 10)

     The trend described above calls into question the role of funeral directors in mediating the death care decisions of American citizens. Obviously, the elimination of funerals poses a direct threat to their economic viability. But beyond their self-interests, there are vast implications for American citizens both individually and for society as a whole if there is a fundamental change in the way we care for our dead.

Among the concerns which arise out of the alterations in death care are the potential for psychological harm to individuals, the loss of time honored social traditions, and ultimately the loss of historical artifacts such as cemeteries. Moreover, the materialization of social stratification in death care is undeniable; and its emergence points to the issue of social injustice in death care. The data on cremation makes it clear that it is the more educated, more affluent, less religious who are choosing the most modest forms of death care; while those in the lower socioeconomic levels stretch their limited resources to provide full service funerals (Prothero, 2001; Fleege & Shaw, 2007). This rapidly evolving situation dictates a moral imperative to pursue root causes of the phenomenon and to develop appropriate responses.

 Influential Scholars

  The research study that is the basis of the REAL Project sought to focus attention on the part played by funeral directors in this cultural phenomenon and how they have responded to what is, in the language of leadership and change theory, an “adaptive challenge.” The theories of Ronald A. Heifetz on “adaptive challenges” and of C. Otto Scharmer on “collective transformational change” provided the theoretical framework for this study. 

Heifetz borrowed from biology and applied the oft-cited principles of adaptation to his field, psychiatry, in advancing his theory about the difficulty of adaptation. Heifetz (1994, 2009) defined adaptive challenge as “a gap between the values people hold and the reality of their lives, or of a conflict among people in a community over values or strategy” (1994, p. 254). In the case of funeral directors, there is a distinct gap between the stated value that they place on their role as arbiters of death care practices and the reality that citizens are rejecting the traditional body-present funeral which is the mainstay of the practice of funeral directing. Heifetz says that changes in the environment make gaps and conflicts apparent; and successful response requires arduous but crucial learning. He argued that it is the role of leadership to create a “holding environment” in which people can learn what they need to; but that there are various obstacles which he calls “work avoidance mechanisms” that impede this process. These will be outlined at the first REAL Project session.

Scharmer (2009) opined that the key to seeing adaptive problems and challenges differently is in achieving a “deeper knowing” (p. 33) that allows us to recognize our true motives and, in turn, permits fresh, creative ideas to emerge. He posited a compelling “social technology” for leading profound innovation and change that involves the engagement of all stakeholders in sustained discourse through which they can co-create their collective future. The Scharmer methodology is used in the REAL Project.

It is intuitively obvious that if it were left up to funeral directors, there would be no decline in funerals. But the elimination of the funeral by more Americans every day suggests that public confidence in their efficacy is lacking. This leaves funeral directors defensive if they attempt to assert their position that funerals are valuable (Weeks, 2001). Examining how and why this came about is gripping because it is such a dramatic divergence from historical practice and the implications for American society have not been thoroughly explored.

Viewed through the lens of leadership theory, this study explored the adaptive challenges that funeral directors faced in the latter half of the 20th century and how they responded. It describes instances in which funeral directors have avoided the daunting process of adaptive work; that this avoidance both stemmed from and contributed to the ambiguity of the occupation’s professional identity; and that as a consequence of work avoidance, funeral directors do not have the necessary legitimacy as an accepted profession which would enable them to arbitrate the death care decisions of citizens. 

 Background

  A brief re-tracing of the events leading up to the current situation will help frame the problem. Through the first half of the 20th century, it was unthinkable that funeral directors would have a diminished role in end of life care. It was assumed that when a death occurred, a funeral director would take charge of the attendant rituals and ceremonies. Long before the advent of bereavement counselors, the funeral director was seen as the “death expert” in the community. The old adage “nothing is sure but death and taxes” suggested that the funeral industry was practically immutable. But recent developments evidenced, among other things, by a steady rise in cremation rates, a precipitous drop in casket sales, and a very recent decline in the number of funeral homes signal fundamental changes in the way post death activities are being conducted in North America. In short, there is mounting evidence that the time honored tradition of funerals with the body present is waning as North American citizens opt for simple disposal of the body without ceremony. The reasons for this development are complex; but most scholars point to broad sociological changes as explanations. DeSpelder & Strickland (2009) capsulized the impact of cultural shifts this way:

Traditional practices with respect to funerals and disposition the body are being altered by the fast pace of modern life. Attendance at funerals is down; fewer people seem to ‘have the time’ to take off from work or other pressing activities for a mourning ceremony that seems somehow optional. (p. 307)

Thomas Lynch (1997) said of this trend that involves the influence of so-called “Generation X” and “Baby Boomers” in changing death care practices: “We can depend upon [the next generation] to make their choices the way we [‘Baby Boomers’ have] made ours: by convenience and expedience and five-year plans, efficiency and function and high performance, quality time and available resources” (p. 159). Thus new cultural norms are impacting decisions regarding post-death activities much the way other areas of life are impacted; and funeral directors have been unsuccessful in their attempts to stem the tide of change.

It is not as if these cultural trends were not recognized by funeral industry leaders. Foreshadowing the current situation, Robert Fulton suggested in 1971that the “forces which negatively affect [the funeral industry] could be “mitigated or modified” (p. 51). He called cultural shifts such as the rise of social mobility and secularism “socially negative forces” (p. 52) as they pertain to funeral directors; and he advocated an “extensive and diversified educational program [that would permit] “funeral service to make a meaningful adaptation to social change rather than be coerced into a potentially negative and harmful response to it” (p. 52). But current evidence of continued declines in traditional funerals points to the reality that the funeral industry did not take up his challenge. In short, funeral directors have been unsuccessful in proactively responding to challenges to the point that there is now reason to seriously question the future of traditional funerals.

The rapid decline of body-present funerals is symptomatic of disparity in views between citizens and death care providers regarding what constitutes appropriate death care. Of course funeral directors espouse funerals; so their concerns might be easily dismissed as self-interest. But bereavement experts have independently established the importance of the ceremony and ritual in the healthy adaptation to grief. Far more important than the pedestrian act of disposing of the dead in a sanitary and orderly manner, the bereaved individually and collectively must decide what types of rituals will satisfy the inherent need to make meaning out of death (Attig, 2001; Corr, C. A., Nabe, C. M. & Corr, D. M., 2003; DeSpelder, L. A & Strickland, A. L., 2009; Imber-Black, 2004; Kushner, 1981; Neimeyer, 1998). 

So the efficacy of funerals appears to be sound. But the trend of eliminating the funeral is an indication that citizens do not understand this and are making crucial decisions about this profoundly important event absent expert intervention of the kind that takes place for other significant areas of life such as health care and legal matters.

It is not an overstatement to say that in 21st century North America, it can no longer be taken for granted that when a death occurs there will be a funeral. All of the historical assumptions about what constitutes proper post death care in North America are now in a state of flux. Similarly to divergent views on the full range of other cultural issues in postmodern America, there is a considerable difference of opinion as to the most appropriate response to death (DeSpelder and Strickland, 2009, p. 305).

Many Americans still have funerals or at least some type of commemorative event; but increasingly citizens are opting out of any type of ceremony whatsoever and instead are having the body disposed of as expediently, simply, and cheaply as possible. This is a fundamental change in centuries-old death care practice that is unparalleled in any other culture. While death care practices in many countries are simpler than they have been in America in recent decades, there is no other culture on earth that disposes of its dead without ritual in the way that is gaining popularity in the United States.

The magnitude of this development is conveyed in statistical data. While cremation has been popular in a few specific regions of the United States for quite some time, conservative states such as those found in the Southeast remained virtually immune to cremation until recently. But as of 2007, the cremation rate exceeded 10 percent in every state (Casket & Funeral Supply Association of America, September 2009, p. 1) and the nationwide cremation rate is projected to be 50% nationwide by 2015 (Cremation Association of North America, 2011). Dramatic data comes from Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington State where nearly 70% of those who died in 2008 were cremated (Casket & Funeral Association of America, September 2010, p. 1). Although definitive data is scarce, it is widely believed throughout the funeral industry that the majority of those clients selecting cremation are not having a ceremony that involves a funeral director (Schaal, 2004).

The set of contradictions which states both that there is an instinctual drive to have funerals and that people are rejecting them based on rational choice must be reconciled. The risks of eliminating funerals are dramatically illuminated by Long (2009) who warned:

We are going through one of those periodic upheavals in the ways we care (or don’t) for the dead that are inevitable signs of an upheaval in the ways we care (or don’t) for the living. To put it bluntly, a society that has forgotten how to honor the bodies of those who have departed is more inclined to neglect, or even torture, the bodies of those still living. (p. 7)

Despite the obvious alarm registered in such statements, the trend toward eliminating funerals continues and funeral directors appear to be unable to mitigate the accelerating rate of change in consumer preferences. Moreover, it can no longer be assumed that it is a funeral director who will be in charge of the post-death activities. There are now a number of “alternative death care” (Smith, 1996, p. 248) options available to citizens such as limited service providers who cremate bodies without ceremony; and death care midwives who encourage home funerals without the use of funeral director. There is even a burgeoning self-help or “Do-It-Yourself (DIY)” movement that encourages survivors to care for their own dead without a funeral director (Harris, 2007, p. 103).

 Social Cost of Ambiguity

  Scholarly literature supports the premise that death impacts not just those most affected, but the broader culture as well. Because actions surrounding death have such a significant effect on society, funerals are considered a “social instinct” with important cultural impact (Dempsey, 1975; Fulton, 1965, 1971, 1976, 1979; Habenstein & Lamers, 1963, 2001; Laderman, 1996, 2003; Long, 2009, Rando, 1984).

Blauner (in Fulton,1976) explained that when faced with a death, there is a dual need: to separate the body from the society but to do so in a manner that minimizes the anxiety produced by the necessity of parting with the deceased. He said:  

The need to [redefine the status of the deceased] directs societies to construct rituals that celebrate and ensure a transition to a new social status…Thus a funeral that combines this status transformation with the act of physical disposal is universal to all societies and has justly been considered one of the crucial rites de passage. (p. 45)

While the elaborateness of obsequies has ebbed and flowed in accordance with shifts in communal values, the one cultural universal that has remained constant is the notion that everyone deserves a “decent burial.”(Habenstein & Lamers, 2001, p. 3). For centuries, this took a notably standardized form that included time spent with the body, a religious ceremony and – most of the time – earth burial with a permanent monument. But in 21st century North America, the phrase “decent burial” has lost its common meaning. With increasing frequency American citizens are opting for abbreviated funeral ceremonies or skipping any such event altogether; and earth burial is no longer the final disposition for a significant portion of those who die each year. Unlike elsewhere in the world where cremation is an adjunct to the funeral, in the United States cremation is largely understood as substituting for a funeral.

It is important to emphasize that there is no other society on earth that disposes of its dead without a funeral. According to Habenstein & Lamers (1963): 

There is no group, however primitive at the one extreme or civilized at the other, which left freely to itself and within its means does not dispose of the bodies of its members with ceremony. So true is this universal fact of ceremonial funeralization that it seems reasonable to conclude that it flows out of human nature. (p. 757) 

In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that funeral rituals are instinctual. For example, anthropological reports substantiate that the Neanderthals buried their dead with ceremony in Iraq some 60,000 years ago (Pine, 1969). Moreover, Habenstein & Lamers (1963) assert that “the social chaos occasioned by the death of a family or community member is never brought to order by activities based solely on rational or utilitarian considerations” (p. 771). Yet the latter appears to be precisely what is taking place in 21st century America as surveys such as the Wirthlin Report (2004) show that convenience and economic considerations are primary reasons for the selection of cremation without a funeral.

But there is potential for unintended negative consequences arising out of reducing death care decisions to mere economic transactions. Bereavement experts believe that society as a whole is at risk of paying a price in terms of its collective well-being due to making ill-informed death care decisions (Bolton & Camp,1987; Corr, Nabe & Corr, 2003; Doka, 1984; Grollman,1997; Irion, 1991; Klass, D., Silverman, P., & Nickman, S.,1996; Jackson, E., 1963; Lindemann,1944; Paul,1997; Rando, 1984; Wolfelt, 1994; Worden, 1991). Not only can there be psychological harm to those most closely affected by the death because of unresolved grief; on a broader and longer-term level, there is a risk that the complete cultural record of this period of history will be lost due to the elimination of funerary artifacts.

The state of confusion is captured in an essay by Lynch (2003), aimed at the clergy, in which he chided them about the increasingly popular “just a shell” notion that leads clergy to urge parishioners to eliminate the body from the ceremonial event. Lynch opined:

 The memorial service [without the body present] makes much of dealing with memories of the dead by steadfastly refusing to deal with the dead themselves.  It is the emotional and commemorative equivalent of a baptism without the baby or a wedding without the blushing bride or a graduation without the graduates.” (p. 21)

In the long term, there are a number of issues that American society needs to resolve about its values regarding death care such as whether or not death care a need that is appreciable as a right or is it a mere commodity like a new car, household appliance, or perhaps a wedding celebration. If death care is a right, what is the best delivery system that will assure every citizen their fair treatment? What are the implications for an alternative delivery system of death care for society and for funeral directors as a group? But before this vital moral discourse can take place, it must be determined where responsibility for it lies. The aim of this study was to lay a foundation for the funeral industry to clarify its role in this age old social exercise.

Change and Adaptive Challenges

  Most of the literature that addresses the phenomenon of eliminating funerals attributes the change to “broad cultural shifts” in American society which make it appear that the fate of funeral directors was beyond their control. In addition to the emergence of the “convenience culture” and general confusion about death care describe above, other factors often cited include: The increase in life expectancy that makes death less common in everyday life; the chronic nature of illness that makes survivors feel as if they have already taken their leave when the death occurs; the decrease in participation in organized religion which has been the cornerstone of traditional funerals; and increasing social mobility that results in families being spread across the globe. Fulton (1979) pointed out that when these changes in values and attitudes are combined with the economic reality that makes death expenses a source of anxiety and concern, it is no wonder that Americans are disinclined to consume economic and environmental resources of the living for the benefit of the dead (p. 236). 

But there is one key point that is missed in the view that the current trends in death care are the inevitable result of broad cultural shifts and that funeral directors could not have done anything about the situation. It is a matter of fact that other occupations, most notably medicine, took charge of their destiny despite obstacles very similar to those facing funeral directors. Starr (1982) made it clear that “Doctors in America were not always the powerful and authoritative profession that they are today. A century ago they had much less influence, income, and prestige” (p. 7).

At the beginning of the 20th century, medicine was a virtual “free for all” with many practitioners holding no valid credential whatsoever (Flexner 1910; Starr, 1982). Medicine achieved its current status as the world’s preeminent profession through persistent effort using an exacting process that largely centered on the attainment of consensus about credentialing requirements. In other words, the medical field decided at a given point in time to pursue full professionalization; and they achieved their goal with remarkable speed. If physicians surmounted resistance to their advance, what prevented funeral directors from following suit? Despite clear aspirations, the evidence demonstrates that funeral directors have failed to attain the cultural authority afforded generally accepted professions and thus do not have cultural authority over the death care environment.

 Cultura

At the root of the challenges facing funeral directors is the question of whether or not they command the public confidence necessary to arbitrate death care decisions. This notion of “cultural authority” was well articulated by Starr (1982) who said of it: “authority, in its classical sense, signifies the possession of some status, quality, or claim that compels trust or obedience” (p. 9). Such authority is an essential part of professional identity and permits a profession considerable influence over matters within its purview. According to numerous scholars (Durkheim, 1957, 1964; Freidson, 1970, 1986, 1988; Friedman, 1962; Hollings & Pike-Nase, 1997; Illich, 1977; Krause, 1996; Larson, 1977; Macdonald, 1995; Starr, 1982; Turner & Hodge, 1970; and Weber, 1978) generally accepted professions are given exclusive jurisdiction over their domains by citizens and the state because their endeavors are deemed to be essential to the greater good of society. True professions create barriers that prevent the entrance into the field of people who do not “pass muster.” But the borders of funeral service practice are increasingly porous because there is no uniform agreement about what qualifications are required.

 Professionalization

  Clarity about how professional status is attained is important because recognition as a profession is fundamental to the ability of an occupational group to exert influence over its domain. It cannot be overstated that an occupation does not become a “profession” accidently or by natural evolution. Professional status is certainly not attained merely by adopting the verbiage and aspiring to be held in high regard. There is a distinct difference between professional behavior and the attainment of recognition as a true profession. There is considerable confusion about the difference because so many occupations aspire to professional status and the term “profession” is used so liberally by many occupational groups. But the difference is that true professions go through a very specific process that has been well documented by scholars (Freidson, 1970, 1986, 1988; Hollings & Pike-Nase, 1997; Krause, 1996; Larson, 1977; Macdonald, 1995; Starr, 1982; Turner & Hodge, 1970; and Weber, 1978). It centers on extensive education, examination, and licensing along with ethical “standards of practice” that are universally enforced.

Unlike fields such as medicine, law, and theology, the progress of funeral service toward true professional status has been stymied by a number of factors including role confusion, internal contradictions, and conflict that are thoroughly described in the study. If the exclusive status described above is not warranted for funeral service practitioners, significant structural changes would follow. For example, there would be no need for mandatory education and without that, there is no professional licensure. Without those key features of the occupation, the entire delivery system of death care in the United States would be dramatically altered as virtually anyone who wanted to could enter the field. The downside risk to this route is that in the absence of funeral directors, there is no well-developed alternative in place to assist citizens during what is arguably one of life’s most important events. Absent funeral directors, who would provide expert intervention in death care? But it is also true that eliminating bureaucratic regulatory requirements would free practitioners to compete fairly and, if we are to believe the principles of “free enterprise,” the concept of “survival of the fittest” would take over.

 Conclusion

  Viewed through the lens of leadership theory, it is clear that the funeral industry faces an adaptive challenge to thrive or even survive in the rapidly changing environment of 21st century American society. Specifically, funeral directors are challenged by the cultural phenomenon that involves the elimination of body-present funerals. Statistics such as the rise in cremation and the decline in casket sales indicate that funeral directors are no longer able to make the case to the public for the traditional, body-present funeral that has heretofore been a central feature of their role as death care functionaries. This development not only threatens the economic viability of funeral directors; it contradicts the core values that have historically sustained the death care system. It raises the question of whether or not funerals as they have been known for centuries are relevant in contemporary society. A sustained discourse needs to be conducted to ascertain how death care should look in the future and what the role of the funeral director will be.

This study suggests that the funeral industry is limited in its capacity to conduct adaptive work because unlike other professions (medicine, law, and theology), funeral directors have not developed a consensus about their societal role that would afford them a high degree of control over their fate. The evidence demonstrates that there are numerous contradictions and unresolved issues within the funeral industry itself that hamper its ability to respond to the changing environment. Among the conflicts are disagreements about the appropriate level of education and licensing credentials and whether or not funeral service should be heavily regulated by the state. A central issue is persistent ambiguity about whether or not funeral directing is a profession as distinct from a trade or vocation. All of these topics will be explored in the course of the REAL Project. For now let it suffice to say that as a result of the internal and external threats, funeral directors have become vulnerable to being rendered largely irrelevant in the foreseeable future. If funeral directors are relegated to an attenuated role in society, there are real and serious consequences which must be addressed.

Definition of Key Terms

  The following terms are provided to develop a common language for use during the project:

 1.     Adaptive Challenge. The situation facing a group of people which requires a different way of thinking or behaving (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky, 2009).

2.     Adaptive Work. The learning required to address conflicts in the values people hold, or to diminish the gap between the values people stand for and the reality they face (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky, 2009).

3.     American Board of Funeral Service Education (American Board or ABFSE). The educational arm of the funeral industry. This organization is made up of the specialized funeral service schools and an accreditation arm. Other organizations, such as trade associations, are dues paying and have voting members as well.

4.     Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards (The Conference). The umbrella organization for funeral industry regulators. This organization also administers the National Board Examination, the standardized entrance examination for funeral service licensure. The Conference was the antecedent to the American Board.

5.     Consumer Advocate. See “Memorial Society.”

6.     Funeral Director. Due to the wide variety of terms used to describe functionaries in the field (such as “embalmer,” “mortician,” and “undertaker”) it was necessary to find an all-encompassing term to describe funeral service practitioners. While funeral director often implies ownership or management functions; it is used here broadly to describe members of the occupation in general; and does not distinguish between owners/managers and employees/staff members.

7.     Funeral Industry. In this context, the term is used intentionally in reference to the occupational group in question. Since the question of professionalization of this group is central to the project, it would be confusing to refer to the occupational group as the “funeral profession” as is commonly done elsewhere.

8.     Memorial Society. This refers to reform-minded consumer advocacy groups who are sharply critical of mainstream funeral providers on primarily economic grounds. These groups generally advocate minimalist death care.

9.     National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA). The oldest and largest funeral industry trade association. NFDA represents the interests of practitioners. Along with the American Board and the Conference, trade associations comprise the predominant organizational structure of the funeral industry.

10. Profession. Used here, the term is reserved for occupational groups that are widely considered “true” professions; such as medicine, law, and theology. This usage is intended to draw a clear distinction between occupations that are generally accepted as professions and those that are considered business enterprises, trades, or vocations and are not generally accorded standing as professions.

11. Work Avoidance. Patterns of response to the disequilibrium caused by adaptive challenges; defensive mechanisms that minimize distress temporarily but do not accomplish long-term adaptive change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monica Torres

Living my dream helping bereaved families by supporting Funeral Service Professionals nationwide as the Director of Marketing and Outreach at Cairn Partners

7y

True challenges have emerged!

Like
Reply

I am reading! Is is great work

Like
Reply

Thanks for posting. I’ve started reading ....

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Others also viewed

Explore content categories