From the time that I was introduced to the Solution Focused Approach I was told it is a strength-based approach. However, this description has never felt quite right to me and somehow feels like an inaccurate characterization of what a Solution Focused Brief Therapist is doing in session. Since I have not been able to articulate as to why I had these feelings I have not made my thoughts on this subject known. However, recently things have become clearer to me and this made me want to share my thoughts.
Over the years I have met several wonderful clinicians that described themselves, and their work with clients, as strengths based. As I have talked with these professionals over the years I have come realize that we may not be doing the same thing in session. For example, I was recently meeting with one such professional and discussing how they work in session and it made the picture of the differences become more clear for me.
In session, when using a strengths based approach, the clinician is interested in assessing the client for their strengths and resources so the client will become more skilled in using those traits to conquer a current or future problem. A Solution Focused professional will be engaged in a very different task. While solution building the practitioner is not assessing for anything, including strengths. Instead the SFBT therapist is talking to the client as if they have the inherent strengths needed to engage in the conversation and subsequently resolve the problems that triggered the need for therapy as the go about the task of creating their preferred future. The therapist does not need to have any understanding of the client strengths and thus does not need to assess for them, simply ask questions as if those strengths are there.
This may seem like a subtle difference but to me it is quiet significant. This difference will impact the type of questions that are developed in session and the way the professional goes about doing their work. More importantly, the client experiences a heightened sense of agency and becomes aware of their own strengths without the therapist leading the conversation. It makes more sense to me to describe SFBT as a “strength reliant” approach due to the fact that an SFBT therapist is completely relying on the client’s strengths and skills and functions with a total sense of trust that the client has these strengths within them to carry forward.
I am curious what others in the SFBT community think of this.
Best,
Elliott Connie
Elliott,
Agree with you entirely. In fact, I’ve heard Steve say something like if you reify strengths. logically you have to reify problems if you want to be intellectually consistent. Dave Nylund and I discussed this in our 20 year update of developments in SFBT and narrative therapy. For some people (like us who are interested in the ideas behind our practices, and being conceptually coherent) it’s important to make this distinction. For others who do a mash-up of SFBT, narrative, “strengths-based,” resiliency-oriented, recovery model, Positive Psychology stuff — or anything else that gets people talking about what they are doing well, or how they are doing things to get them closer to what they want — at least it’s better than discussing problems and diagnosing.
Thanks for the comment Jeff, I am actually a bit nervous to post it but what you said about the “mash-up” of approaches that get people talking about what they do well so totally resonates with me! I think it time we start being more clear about what separates SFBT from these other approaches and that being positive in session is not synonymous with being solution focused.
Hi Elliott! I partially agree. Trying to “mine” for strengths (as is inherent in the resource metaphor) is a hierarchical activity with the therapist being the expert. This misunderstanding of SFBT goes along with other misconceptions I come across quite often, like SFBT being overly optimistic or ignorant of the problem.
Then again, I don’t think more distinction between schools is actually helpful. If strength-based conversations help people, and SFBT helps people, I’d be very curious wether it’s for the same or different reasons – there might be something we’d all be interested in. I’m not saying everybody should do generic therapy (I believe doing what you most identify with makes for better outcome), but IMHO the school dispute takes away from the beauty of many ways to have helpful conversations.
To borrow from your post: Maybe we should look at different schools as if some merit is surely there, instead of assessing them for merit or problem. 😉
Hi Jan,
I actually don’t think more distinctions are needed either. However, I think we must be clearer about the distinctions. SFBT is becoming confused with all of the other positive approaches and causing new learners to the field to think if you are talking positively or talking about client resources then you are doing SF work and this is not the case. SFBT is a VERY specific way of working and we need to be much clearer about this process.
Another consideration is that the strengths that play a part in one solution may or may not be the strengths that play a part in the client solving something else. So there’s no need to inventory all the ‘strengths’ (and re-ify them), when only some will be called upon each time.
Agree with all the above too.
Thanks for the comment Paul. I agree with you and like the way you discuss the way a client may (or may not) use their strengths.
The language we use in SFBT is critical. I think we look for the client’s resources, sometimes called strengths.
Thanks for the comment Alan. I would not say I am looking for client resources or strengths. I am using the client language to elicit a preferred future description.
Absolutely.
Your article got my attention. I thought, ok if SFBT is not strength based; what would it be instead?
I appreciate that you pointed out what strength based therapies looks like. To which I conclude that this may be a distinction only in language.
assessing strengths: The client is his or her own expert. ( So yes, SFBT is reliant on the client as you stated in your article). SFBT questions assist clients self assessments by tapping into client’s creativity (imagine, what if). I notice these imaginings are natural and familiar for clients. That is, clients tend to have a reasonable assessment of their strengths (what they are capable of doing, and have done).
Strengthening skills: Once the client is set in motion toward their solution, they naturally have heightened awareness which empowers them to reinforce what they are doing well, and self assess their progress.
I propose SFBT is among other things: strength based. It is also client centered and client directed, adaptive processing, experiencial….I would opt to define all SFBT is and can be.
Hi Romona,
I am very glad this post made you and others think. That was what I was hoping would occur when I wrote it. I passionately believe we have to be more clear about what separates SFBT and other approaches and what we are doing in session. There is currently some great research to this end being done by some great professionals and I love the way you describe SFBT as “strength based among other things”.
Hi Elliot, thank you for putting your thoughts forward.
I would totally agree with your position. In fact I work in a very similar way, in that I assume the client’s expertise in their own life and; the strengths, abilities and knowledge that underpin this expertise.
I work with predominantly with children and have found that when they (and in fact adults as well) being able to do something (abeit something small) about the problems they encounter it is very empowering for them.
When they are successful in dealing with the issues they bring to counselling this reinforces their abilities and strengths. Success also reinforces the idea that problems do in fact go away.
Thanks for opening up the discussion
Carla King
Counsellor in School (Auckland NZ)
For me the power of solution focused therapy is about three words curiosity-possibility-change, if the curiosity elicits strengths and this breeds the possibility of change, then wonderful for the client. When I ask questions I am first and foremost curious about what would be different if…. Have things been different, is there a way that things can carry on being different in the way ‘you’ want it to be, well then do more of that…..for me the process is not strength based it is curiosity based. my role is to be curious in the direction of the clients preferred future and to build on exceptions and previous successes, or just the possibility of success for the client to feel and experience success in the direction of their preferred future
Well said Robert!
EC