G is for Goals or for not-goals

G is for Goals or for not-goals

The Solution Focused approach is not infrequently referred to as a ‘goal-focused approach’. Indeed the first site to come up on my search in relation to the query ‘what is Solution Focused Brief Therapy’  refers to Solution Focused Practice in the first two paragraphs as ‘future-focused, goal-directed and focuses on solutions’ and then ‘SFBT is a short-term goal-focused evidence-based therapeutic approach’ (1) The repeated referencing of the term ‘goals’ is perhaps not surprising since the word can be found throughout the writings of the pioneers and developers of the approach Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg and Eve Lipchik. For example, de Shazer writes “Without goals, therapists and clients cannot know when the therapy has succeeded or failed” (de Shazer, 1988, p 93), whilst Berg and Miller write “without explicit goals, it is difficult for the client to evaluate her successes” (Berg & Miller, 1992, p 32). de Shazer clarifies for us the risk of failing to establish goals “without this step” he writes “therapy could reasonably go on forever” (de Shazer, 1988, p 93).

If this is right that de Shazer and Berg use the word goal virtually interchangeably with the idea of ‘success criteria’, implying the co-construction of a method whereby the client is enabled to judge success and to be able to know when they no longer need to continue attending therapy, then this is far from the way that the term is typically used. It is this particular use of the term that is expanded when de Shazer writes “The goal is best thought of as some member of the class of ways that the therapist and the client will know that the problem is solved rather than any particular member of that class” (de Shazer, 1988, p 93). We can compare this with the Oxford English dictionary definition which defines the word goal as ‘the object towards which effort or ambition is directed: the destination of a (more or less laborious) journey’ (OED, 1971). Here it is the word ‘the’ that is important. Not any object but ‘the object’. Here we are not talking about one possible object out of many possible objects. The goal (or object) thus specified has specific significance, it is ‘the’ destination.

So de Shazer’s framing implies a certain arbitrariness and this somewhat arbitrary quality that he introduces challenges, as so much of his work does, more traditional approaches to therapy where the therapist might seek to establish ‘the client’s goal’ and indeed might see it as a cause for concern, a problem in the therapeutic process, if the client is thought to ‘change their goal’. de Shazer’s way of thinking introduces a fluidity, a flexibility, within which definitions and framings can ‘slip and slide’. Problems, and indeed solutions, are “constructed out of rather flimsy stuff, not concrete and stone”, which de Shazer reminds us is “good news. (Since) even problems that are traditionally seen as “difficult” are subject to rapid transformation under the right conditions” (de Shazer, 1988, p 113). This fluidity ‘some member of the class of ways’ is further reflected when de Shazer writes “Anything that prompts the client to say that "things are better" needs to be identified as verification of change, and anything new or different or more effective that the client reports needs to be encouraged or amplified” (de Shazer et al, 1986). de Shazer is clear. It is not only those things that fit with the established goals that need to be identified as verification of change but ‘anything that prompts the client to say that things are better’. It is potentially useful it seems for client and worker to co-construct a set of criteria but anything else that is different might also serve the purpose of allowing the client to notice that they have changed. Eve Lipchik also reflects the same fluidity “Solutions are the end product of a process of discovery. They may be far removed from what clients thought their goal was when they entered therapy” (Lipchik, 2002, p 79).

This level of fluidity around goals is highly unusual and has led us at BRIEF to question the usefulness of the term ‘goal’ at all. The term in its common therapy usage implies fixed, determined, unchanging, ‘the object’, ‘the destination’ and this is a long way from the way that the term is being used by Lipchik and de Shazer. Walter and Peller also use the term in this way writing “using goal as a verb, however, highlights that we are talking about a process and about developing possibilities, not about an end point. We are talking about conversation by which meaning evolves and the client begins to have a different experience and to envision alternatives for her life outside the session” (Walter and Peller, 1996, p 18). Note the words ‘process’ and ‘alternatives’. Engaging the client in ‘goaling’ is seen by Walter and Peller as useful per se, it makes a difference and de Shazer reflects this when he writes ” . . . for many people, the activity of answering (the Miracle Question) appears to elicit a significant shift in their state of consciousness” (de Shazer etal, 2007, p 42). As de Shazer argues “Simply describing in detail a future in which the problem is already solved helps to build the expectation that the problem will be solved and then this expectation, once formed, can help the client think and behave in ways that will lead to fulfilling this expectation” (de Shazer, 1988, p 50).

Harlene Anderson and colleagues from the Taos Institute also recognise the limitations attached to traditional goal-setting when they write “Change is inevitable. Holding too tightly to past constructions or the image of a desired future fosters insensitivity to the complexities of the present”. Jack Trout in the Power of Simplicity frames the risks similarly “Another problem with goal-setting is that it creates a certain amount of inflexibility. When you’re focused on a goal, you tend to miss opportunities that present themselves when you take a different direction” (Trout, 1999, pp 139 – 140).

Thus at BRIEF there are two parts to our ‘goaling’. The first part is to elicit from the client an answer to the ‘best hopes question’ (George et al., 1999) without which the worker has no direction for the conversation, no focus, literally nowhere to go. Having established a workable starting point we then invite the client to describe in detail their own real life as transformed by the presence of those best hopes. That description does open possibilities for action, the client could of course decide to follow any one of the possibilities suggested by their description and if they do they are more likely to notice the change. However, even though the process of describing a preferred future does indeed make a difference, it is in that sense ‘therapeutic’, we can have no way of knowing what the relationship will be between the preferred future description and what will be happening in the client’s life at the point that they say ‘that’s enough, I’m done, I don’t need to see you anymore’. At BRIEF we take the ‘goaling’ process seriously and yet we hold the contents lightly.

(1) https://solutionfocused.net/what-is-solution-focused-therapy/
 

Berg, Insoo Kim and Miller, Scott (1992) Working with the Problem Drinker: a solution focused approach. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, Steve (1988) Clues: Investigating Solutions in Brief Therapy. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, Steve, Kim Berg, Insoo, Lipchik, Eve, , Nunnally, Elam, Molnar, A., Gingerich, Wallace,  Weiner Davis, Michelle. (1986)  Brief Therapy: Focused Solution Development  Family Process 25:207-221.
de Shazer, Steve, Dolan, Yvonne, Korman, Harry, Trepper, Terry, MacCollum, Eric and Berg, Insoo Kim (2007) More Then Miracles: the state of the art of solution focused therapy. New York: Haworth.
George, E., Iveson, C. and Ratner, H. (1990; Revised and expanded Edition 1999) Problem to Solution: Brief Therapy with Individuals and Families. London: BT Press  
Lipchik, Eve (2002) Beyond Technique in Solution-Focused Therapy. New York: Guildford.
Trout, Jack. (1999) The Power of Simplicity. New York: McGraw-Hill
Walter, J., & Peller. J. (1996) Re-thinking our assumptions: Assuming anew in a post-modern world. In Miller, Scott, Hubble, Mark and Duncan, Barry (Eds.)  Handbook of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Evan George
London
17^th November 2024