A distinction can be drawn between personal development and personal growth. Despite their similarities, linguistic analysis shows the two concepts to convey different ideas. Personal development is a process concerned with specific aspects of the individual: the development of ‘what’, and the ways this can be planned, achieved and evaluated. Personal growth, on the other hand, is a more generic process having to do with the totality of the individual; it is always judged in terms of values. This difference is vital in counsellor training, where the emphasis should necessarily be on those aspects of personal development that are relevant to specific training objectives and client needs, rather than on personal growth per se.
A linguistic analysis suggests that the meanings of ‘grow/growth’ and ‘develop/development’ are quite different. Superficially it appears that ‘growth’ might logically be a subset of ‘development’, in the same way that ‘small squares’ are a subset of ‘squares’. That is, ‘development’ appears to contain all the attributes of ‘growth’, plus something in addition – the notions of ‘what’ and ‘how’. However, if we examine the ways in which these two concepts are used linguistically, it becomes apparent that ‘development’ is not a subset of ‘growth’; rather, they are intersecting sets. Only in the intersection are attributes shared. It is also evident that each concept is defined by attributes which are not held by the other.
Take, for example, the following pairs of sentences: ‘His self-awareness is developing/His self-awareness is growing’, and ‘The plant is developing/The plant is growing’. The use of the concepts ‘develop’ and ‘grow’ here implies different meanings: the concepts are not synonymous. Both suggest the notion of change, but ‘developing’ has to do with an increase in complexity, whereas ‘growing’ has to do with an increase in quantity. In addition, ‘developing’ in these two sentences seems to include a meaning of ‘starting something’, whereas ‘growing’ seems to imply making something ‘more than it was’.
If we take this analysis further, it becomes clear that semantic constraints limit the interchangeability of the concepts. Consider the following sentences, all of which are syntactically correct and within the rules of English grammar, but some of which are semantically unacceptable: ‘Her self-awareness is being grown/Her self-awareness is being developed’ (the first is not semantically acceptable); ‘He is fully grown/He is fully developed’ (both are semantically acceptable); ‘He is developing old/He is growing old’ (the first is not semantically acceptable).
It is clear that even when identical grammatical constructions are semantically acceptable, the phrases do not necessarily mean the same, and that there are differences in the degree to which meanings overlap. In addition, there are semantic constraints in most of the possible syntactic structures. Without attempting a full linguistic analysis, it seems that there are relatively few constraints on the use of the concepts as intransitive verbs (‘His self-awareness develops/grows’), but numerous limitations on other constructions. Also, it is apparent that the more concrete or observable the situation or phenomenon being discussed, the greater the limitations on acceptable use and the greater the difference in meanings (compare ‘The film develops/grows’ with ‘His self-awareness develops/grows’). Whereas both ‘development’ and ‘growth’ refer to change, they refer to different aspects of change.
Development can be planned and structured. Development is something that can be planned; growth cannot. Growth is what may happen as a result of personal efforts to develop. Thus it is acceptable to say ‘I am seeking to develop my potential’, but not to say ‘I am seeking to grow my potential’: I can develop my personal resources but not grow them. Growth is a more general term – I can seek growth – but the answer to ‘how’ is not contained in the statement. Whereas if I seek to develop, then this immediately poses the question ‘Develop what?’ Growth generally refers to the whole person, whereas development more usually refers to specific aspects. Growth is also used to talk about change which is more or less permanent, like weight or social maturity, whereas development is used for more specific achievements which could be transitory. Thus I can grow taller, but not develop height; I can develop my counselling technique, but not grow it.
While both development and growth refer to change, they refer to different aspects. Development can be planned and structured; goals can be defined and progress checked; criteria can be met and end-points achieved. Not so with growth, which is essentially an open-ended affair – more becoming than being. As such, growth may be an outcome of any development. It is what happens to individuals as a result of their own experiences and personal development work. Growth is essentially a retrospective term: we may know when someone has grown, but may not be aware of the process of growing. In this sense, it is rather like the word ‘career’. A person may embark upon a career, or even plan a career, but he/she does not have a career until it is well established, or indeed over. People have a sequence of jobs over time, and a career is the sense they make of these. Here an outside observer is better placed to perceive the evolution of a career than the person having it! And so with growth. Growth is often judged by the sense made of the past. If we have not seen a child for a long time, we may exclaim ‘My, how you have grown’, yet the child may have little awareness of the changes that have been occurring. I can change a great deal and be unaware of the results, although this growth may be immediately appreciated by another.
Goals and outcomes. Development and growth both imply outcomes: that is, changes being made towards something. We use neither term if changes in a person’s behavior or life are simply random. Inspection of our usage of these concepts shows them both to be directional. If I engage in a collection of different activities – change hobbies, move from one thing to another – then I am changing my behavior, my thoughts and my attitudes; but this would not be described in any way as development. However, if am seeking to develop, for example, my self-awareness, then I will aim to engage in certain tasks in preference to others; my aim will, in part, define the structure of the process. If I am developing a skill or propensity, I will need to define goals, and be able to say what it is that I will be able to do better when I have succeeded in my task. I can structure my activities to ensure both that the aim is met and that I will know when it is. But although growth is directional, it cannot be planned in quite the same way. The process of growth can only be identified when it is apparent that a person’s experiences did indeed lead to growth. Personal development may be a purposeful activity, deliberately entered into. But not so growth. Growth is much more like happiness. I would like to be happy, but I cannot just decide to be happy, any more than I can just decide to grow.
Valence. Growth, as with development, is directional. Yet the term is only used when a person is going, or has got, somewhere. But more than this, growth usually has a positive valence, a value. Thus only when development occurs in a particular direction may it be termed growth, whereas development in another direction will not: ‘She is growing into a good counsellor’, yet ‘She is developing into an unsafe counsellor’. Growth is invariably used (except when used paradoxically) where the outcome (in terms of an objective or preconception) is positive. We grow up, not down. Development may result in a change in ‘amount or complexity’, whereas growth is ‘becoming better’. Growth is ‘change in a desired direction’. Growth always implies a judgement of value.
In contrast, development is a theoretically more neutral term. Successful development is defined in terms of the needs of the moment within a particular context. It relates to situational or agreed indicators. The athlete who achieves a personal best in a race can conclude that all his development work has been a success, even if he came last. If a personal development goal is reached, this is a cause for some celebration, no matter how trivial the goal, or how irrelevant it may be to personal growth.
Personal development work can involve loss as well as gain; it may succeed in its objectives or it may fail. But the growth label is only given to positive outcomes. Growth is a concept embedded in theory. Growth has direction; theory gives it purpose and will almost certainly define criteria against which it may be judged. Thus ‘an individual is said to show growth when he or she becomes more capable and competent, more productive and creative, more perceptive, insightful and understanding, more knowledgeable, prudent and discerning’. All these characteristics relate to desired outcomes. But on what grounds? They are there because they reflect a particular philosophy of life, which affords priority to these items over others such as conformity, boredom and routine. Similarly, autonomy is often taken as an indicator of growth, whereas ‘The emphasis on privileging the needs of the individual is probably a Western pre-occupation’.
To use growth and development as synonyms, as is frequently the case in counselling training and practice, is therefore to invite confusion. It has been noted that such conflation ‘will remain so until the protagonists can clarify at least what they mean by “development”, “growth” … etc. … If practice is to be improved a more theoretical approach is urgently required’. We would concur with these sentiments and suggest that the urgency is accelerated by the current debates on the requirement for personal development (growth?) work for professional accreditation.
The lack of clarity in distinguishing between personal development and personal growth in counsellor training and professional practice, and the imposition of criteria for personal growth upon personal development work, may result in confusion of aims and therefore in the use of inappropriate methods.
Personal growth and counselling theory. The notion of growth as a theory-derived construct is most evident in the work of Rogers, who ‘came to believe that there is only a single, basic human motive and to this he gave the name “the actualising tendency” … the human being has an underlying and inherent tendency … to move towards the constructive accomplishment of its potential’, and has ‘the capacity to grow towards the fulfilment of their unique identities’. The aim of therapy is then to create a growth-producing climate. Here the concept of ‘growing towards’ is evident. The end-point is identified and the characteristics of the self-actualised person have been well documented. The idea of an actualising tendency not only defines the end-point; it allows things to be said about the process. Thus in Rogerian terms growth can be ‘blocked and distorted’ or ‘stunted and warped’. The analogy to plant growth is maintained, and in this sense the counsellor attempts to ‘provide a different soil or climate in which the client … can begin to flourish’.
Rogers presented his ideas both as a theory of personality and as a philosophy of interpersonal relationships – in essence, a philosophy of (for) life. His teachings are often taken as being how things are, or should be, rather than how they might be or could be. Thus it has been written that: ‘Each of us possesses a set of capacities – a promise of what we can become – and as we grow, we develop these capacities and make good on this promise’. But the notion of unfolding and releasing potential is but one view of the nature of personal growth. The teachings of Confucius, Mohammed, Ron Hubbard, or Joseph Smith each provide their own pathway. Rogers’ emphasis on ‘self’ (and self-centredness) can be contrasted to Buddhist psychology where the self is not the centre of the universe, or the asceticism of the Krishna movement can be set against the materialism of Thatcherism. Others will see ‘growth’ as transcending social values, a search for the spiritual, whether by expanding consciousness and searching for universal meanings, or, as with the Shaman, getting in touch with earth forces. For humanists like Maslow or Rogers, growth is essentially a linear process – ‘an increase in complexity allied to continuity’, a revealing of the ‘real’ self; whereas in the trans-personal, levels are disjunctive, ‘each having a different notion of self’.
The concept of growth or growing only makes sense, then, in terms of some particular philosophy. It deals with the general, be it a person’s place in society, the cosmos, or his/her relationship with his/her God. Hence growth is always to be judged against some higher-order criteria. In contrast, development is a much more down-to-earth term, where criteria may be both more specific and more transient. Growth refers to what is often a gradual process to be judged over the fullness of time and in its relation to life’s purpose. So I may have a ‘growing awareness’, whereas I ‘develop a new skill’. It may be possible to observe a trainee’s ‘personal growth as a counsellor’, while noting the ‘development of an ability to self-reflect’. Personal growth in this usage is more or less context-free, in that the skills and understandings acquired through experience define the person who then displays this growth in a variety of situations. Development, on the other hand, is more likely to be context-specific, defined in terms of particular skills and understandings, and may or may not be transferable to other contexts.
Of course, if the goals of growth could be structurally specified as verifiable events, then it would be feasible to plan a strategy for meeting them. Then seeking to grow and seeking personal development would be the same. In Rogerian theory there is a paradox, for the desired outcomes of growth (autonomy, etc.) are described as the inevitable proceeds of self-development work, but are not specified in advance as goals. Individuals are expected to take their own path and find them out for themselves. In counsellor training, where trainees are given the freedom to choose and explore their own personal lives, the direction is often provided by trainers, who are expected to model espoused values.
Implications for counsellor training. The fact that there are clear differences between the meanings of personal development and personal growth has implications for both counsellor training and for practice in terms of structures, goals and outcomes. It is evident that conflation of the terms causes practical and ethical problems in training when criteria for ‘personal growth’ (i.e. becoming a certain kind of person) are superimposed on those for ‘personal development’ (i.e. developing specific skills, aptitudes and qualities). Much counsellor training appears concerned with facilitating, and even coercing, trainees to become a particular sort of person – to meet implicit criteria for ‘personal growth’ – rather than enabling and facilitating ‘personal development’.
Take, for example, the fact that the requirements of both the British Association for Counselling and the British Psychological Society for personal development work are met primarily through personal counselling. Here the conflation of the concepts of development and growth is evident: personal development work is recast as meaning personal therapy. In our terms, personal therapy is seen as being concerned principally with ‘personal growth’, whereas training needs have more to do with personal development, as it relates to the needs of the task and of the client. If our analysis is followed and a distinction is drawn between growth and development, then it is clear that whereas both personal growth and personal development may be essential for the trainee counsellor, they are to be achieved in different ways and judged by different criteria. It is thus absurd and dangerous to assume that personal development needs can all be met by procedures (such as personal therapy) designed principally to facilitate personal growth. As it has been confirmed: ‘There is danger in presuming that ongoing therapy is sufficient to cover the range of personal development that is required in training’.
‘Increasingly in counselling training, a strong emphasis has been placed on the personal aspects of growth and development, in addition to, and to distinguish these from, what might be conventionally have been described as professional development’. For some, personal and professional development are synonymous, and in so far as counsellors use themselves in partnership with a client towards therapeutic gain, this must be true. Nevertheless it is instructive to distinguish between specific aspects of professional development, such as learning to use supervision, or being familiar with ethical codes, and the purely personal agenda of, say, developing an ability to self-reflect. It may further be useful to categorise the different ways in which personal development work may, or may not, impinge on client work. A simple classification might be between those aspects of personal development which: (i) are essential and impinge directly on work with any client (e.g., being fully aware of one’s own sexuality); (ii) may be useful with certain clients or client groups (e.g., ethnic sensitivity); (iii) are essential to the psychological health of the counsellor (e.g., learning to like yourself), and thus of only indirect importance to the client; and (iv) are for the pleasure and indulgence of the counsellor (‘narcissistic absorption’). There are those who would see such divisions as arbitrary and nihilistic, but in establishing training needs there has to be some specification of minimal requirements, although of course personal development work initiated in training will necessarily extend throughout a professional career.
Personal development is very much an open-ended agenda, depending on the needs/aims of practitioners as their training and career develop. Some personal development work may indeed actively interfere with client work, and the search for perfection is as unrealistic as it may be maladaptive. What is clear is that it is not necessary for counsellors to address all their personal issues in order to be safe and effective therapists. The question then arises as to which bits are critical and indispensable.
There is an urgent need to identify and clarify those personal attitudes, qualities, and skills which are directly related to the professional practice of counselling, and which are essential to serve the needs of clients. This task presents a considerable challenge to trainers. Unfortunately where agendas for training have been attempted, they have inevitably been counsellor-centred rather than client-directed. In addition to designing relevant and effective programmes to deliver such training, there is a need to establish ways in which these faculties may be evaluated. If certain personal attributes are deemed fundamental to competent and safe counselling practice, there has to be in place some adequate way of assessing this component of training.
Additionally it has to be recognised that the appropriateness of particular personal development work will depend on the ethos of the course. A distinction has been made between those counselling courses characterised as ‘inductive’, which focus on interpretation and meanings, and those characterised as ‘deductive’, which focus primarily on skills and techniques. The former, for example, may look for stillness and fearlessness, while the latter may seek cognitive flexibility and lateral thinking. Within each grouping, personal development will necessarily have to be congruent with the core theoretical model. Different ways of working within counselling will each have their own, often distinct, developmental agenda. Systemic theory, for example, will focus less on the development of the individual than on the development of relationships with others; the cognitive behaviorist seeks open and flexible schema rather than particular knowledge; the psychodynamic view puts the emphasis on unlearning, revisiting the past rather than looking to the future; which in turn can be contrasted to the here-and-now of gestalt or personal construct work. Thus, while person-centred trainers will talk of ‘personal awareness’, a psychodynamic course will emphasise ‘personal understanding’.
Not only are there different paths, but in each there may be different developmental stages. And different approaches can be categorised as being at different levels. Most counselling courses stay at the level of the social, some venture to the self-defining person, while few enter the realms of the spiritual: most therapists never get to the trans-rational let alone the trans-personal. What is clear is that there is not something called ‘personal development’, which can be tagged on to any counsellor training syllabus: ‘What for one practitioner constitutes an effective path to self-development may seem a nonsense to another’. Also, the expressed range of outcomes of personal development work in training is so vast as to present it as a magic potion rather than a structured task. For example, personal development work is held to involve a ‘unique pattern of moral, emotional, sexual, social and intellectual concerns’, and is supposed ‘to combat weariness, staleness, cynicism or despair’, and allow the counsellor to ‘identify her own strengths, limitations and oddities’, while taking part in ‘the struggle for a sense of significance and purpose in life’: a broad agenda indeed! Furthermore, counsellor training takes place in a variety of settings and backgrounds, and these have significance for the status of personal development within a course. Thus there is no universal recipe for personal development work, or for deciding what it is, or when it is enough!
But whatever the theoretical orientation or context of a course, there is surely a need to identify those facets of personal development which are merely desirable and those which are essential for safe and competent practice. If this is recognised, then personal development work in training would necessarily become a much more structured activity. Growth perhaps may be left to the vagaries of life and of the training experience, but the specific professional demands of being a counsellor require more specific and confirmable objectives. Thus personal development needs as they relate to client work should be the focus of training, although personal growth may be the outcome for individual trainees.
‘Personal growth’ and ‘personal development’ are not theoretically neutral terms. This has to be recognised in professional directives and in training provision. Proclaiming the need for personal growth in counsellors without reference to theory is to say nothing of what is being sought. Similarly, the notion of ‘personal development’ only means something in terms of a counsellor’s core theoretical model: to regard it as a generic process is to invite confusion.
Conclusion. ‘Personal growth’ and ‘personal development’ are not synonymous: the terms convey quite different meanings. There is no generic process of growth or development: various theories produce their own various meanings. Statements as to the need for and value of ‘growth’ or ‘development’, in the absence of a theoretical frame – as in much of the professional literature – are vacuous assertions. Certainly, the observed lack of clarity in distinguishing between personal development and personal growth in counsellor training and professional practice, and the imposition of criteria for personal growth upon personal development work, result in a confusion of aims, and therefore in the use of inappropriate methods.
The identified parameters of personal development of being directional and context-bound should allow training to be structured and evaluated. Personal growth, however, is a much more amorphous concept, identified not through experiences but by outcomes – outcomes which involve value judgements. Counsellors may need both to personally develop and to grow as persons. These are intertwined but identifiably different processes.