Ah, the thorny issue of recruitment. It's been talked about before, but this is a problem I didn't expect to have. It's not about letting everyone have a fair crack at the work, it's not about "keep off my manor", it's about something a little more delicate - suitability.
What makes a good funeral celebrant? There are some obvious skills needed; writing, speaking in public, time keeping, organisation. Most of these are about the ceremony itself. What about meeting the family? How many celebrants have come away from a family visit hearing "thank you, I was dreading this, but I really enjoyed talking about her". Again, there are skills involved; listening, questioning, picking up on the body language etc. But to me, the most important thing that a funeral celebrant should have isn't a skill, it's a trait, and that is warmth. I'm not talking about gushing sentimentality, but just good old fashioned warmth and part of the problem is that it's not quantifiable.
Someone (for convenience, we'll call him "Michael") is a local celebrant for other ceremonies. With everything other than funerals, people choose their celebrant, they meet us and decide which one suits them best. (This could happen for funerals but usually doesn't. A subject for another day, perhaps?)
I don't have a problem with Michael on a personal level; we've got along fine in the past, but he lacks the warmth needed for funerals.
Michael asked me to support his application to become a funeral celebrant. I said that I was unable to do this. Interestingly, he has never asked me why (I was happy to have this conversation, but wanted him to ask - the fact that he didn't rather backed up my view). This means that either my opinion doesn't matter to him (except for furthering his own wishes), or he is making an assumption, probably based on protecting my workload. This is absolutely not the case. I am running at capacity and often pass work on to colleagues.
Other local celebrants have also been unable to support Michael's application but, if the jungle drums are correct, celebrants from elsewhere in the country have said yes, and his training is due to begin.
I really hope that I'm wrong about Michael. Because if he passes his training (and he is technically competent, so no reason why not), then someone, somewhere will give him work and there will be families who have him sitting in their front room, drinking their tea, and asking about their dearly departed.
Please let me be wrong, because nobody should ever have a bad funeral.
So where does this leave me? I am supposed to support colleagues, help with promotion and, when I am unable to take a ceremony, suggest them in my place. And that is not something that, in all conscience, I could do.
It's a dilemma and one that I'm working through but, at the moment, if the jungle drums are correct, then I'm really not sure what do to.
Love and peace to all. x
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Tricky one XP, but what a wonderfully well-balanced view you have of it. Warmth, empathy, sensitivity are surely just as essential as the communication skills. Without both, a celebrant risks being coldly proficient or warmly incomprehensible!
I came through this issue round 'ere with a degree of ruthlessness, I'm afraid. I was "supposed" to recommend a colleague from - the same stable, let's say, if I was unavailable. But FDs started to say things like "X doesn't really seem to connect with the family much" or even "does an efficient job, but...there's something missing."
So I stopped recommending him unless there was absolutely no alternative. Seems to me we shouldn't promote or recommend anyone merely because they come from the same "firm." That's why I'm a bit out of sympathy with "firms," if you see what a mean.
But I'm entirely in sympathy with your thoughtfully-arrived at sense of priorities. Good for you!
I can't see you recommending anyone who you don't think has got it, whether they are in your firm or not, and I think you're absolutely right. Whatever the advantages of belonging to a firm, this issue is a serious problem sometimes.
A few years ago, I was given some really worrying feedback from an FD about a colleague in the same firm as me, right on the edge of the area in which I work. I told the firm's area co-ordinator, but nothing could be done, it seemed, because "we" didn't have anyone else in the area.
This was one of the reasons why I eventually said goodbye to the firm. Not that I'm encouraging you to do the same, but it's clear to me you've got your priorities right. Families first, firm second!
And love and peace back to you, O Honest One!
from Gloria X
Gloria, I think I love you.
Many thanks for your long and considered reply.
My position within "the firm" has been the subject of considerable thought, as you can imagine.
It's so nice to know that I'm not alone and I really appreciate your time in replying - I genuinely feel relieved!
Perhaps its time to put some big brave pants on, after all.
Keep smiling.
XP xx
XP, oh XP, how I feel for you! That Michael did not seek to know why you felt you couldn't recommend him shows how little insight he has into himself. Whilst he will, if he trains and works, be spared the agonising self-examination good celebrants subject themselves to, this in itself disqualifies him from practising. And, as you say, the objective selection criteria employed by your firm, allied probably to its territorial ambitions, mean that the unquantifiable but most valuable, attributes will not be measured, so he stands every chance of passing the course with flying colours.
He's not the only one. I fear that a great many (often very narcissistic) people are moving into celebrancy -- and finding it rather easy (what's all the fuss about??) And let's not overlook the role of FDs, here, who are employing them.
At stake is the future of the funeral, I believe. That may sound absurdly pessimistic, but if people begin to feel that the funerals they attend don't do them any good and do not offer them meaningful emotional nourishment, they will simply stop having them. It's not so much bad funerals that are the problem as empty funerals -- expertly conducted, signifying nothing.
FDs need to get the message or they'll undermine their businesses. The celebrancy training firms need to get the message. And good celebrants need to spend more time talking and listening to each other with all the denominational barriers down.
I am afraid that, at present, Michael is emblematic of a burgeoning problem. But so long as there are good people like you and GM are out there, conducting funerals with your whole hearts, there has to be hope -- together with witness and example.
Yes, there has to be hope -- and I believe that the good will prevail; we HAVE to believe that!!
Thank you, Charles, for your reply - I had spent a lot of time deciding whether or not to post on this subject, worried that I was just being a witch (with a capital B) but thanks to you and Gloria, I feel much better.
You are right about the emotional nourishment of the funerals. I used to hear stories of duty vicars, sitting at the crem all day, repeating the ceremonies doing an "insert name here" job.
The rise of the various firms did a lot to improve that situation, allowing people to have control over what they wanted and having something meaningful to them.
If celebrants do a good job, it looks easy and so more and more people will be tempted to have a go.
And as firms get bigger, their acceptance criteria becomes more of an anonymous, tick box, affair, which means that we will have a number of competent and adequate celebrants. Could we damn with more faint praise than that?
The FDs are key and the good ones will be very selective. But how many families even shop around for FDs?
Don't be too pessimistic, though, Charles - the work of the GFG has, I believe, done a great deal to raise awareness and let folks know that they have choice, along with the other organisations that you champion.
We must all keep up the good work; because we all know that it really is worth it.
Best wishes and thanks again.
XP
Post a Comment