Explaining the kind of Coaching I practice can be very frustrating.

I believe the label ‘Solution-Focus’ does not help – but it is what we have.

So let me be clear: “solution-focused” (as opposed to “problem-focused”) does not mean we are problem-phobic, as Insoo Kim Berg herself said; it does not mean we wear rose-tinted glasses and we live in a Polyanna world.

It simply means we adhere to the empirical finding that analyzing problems does not make a difference when trying to solve people-problems, e.g. managing a difficult employee or making a behavioral change (as opposed to “mechanical” or “medical” problems, i.e. fixing the car or healing an infection).

Finding out why you act out some behaviors again and again can be very interesting – yet it does not help you change those behaviors.

Analyzing why your co-worker is so obnoxious can be very interesting – yet it does not bring you any closer to a solution of the problem you have when you work with her.

As a professional, of course you can engage in those conversations – while interesting, though, those conversations are not essential to help clients move forward. You can safely skip them without affecting the outcome, and with the added benefit of saving time.

OK, so the “solution-focused” methodology allows practitioners to cut to the chase and do only what is necessary to catalyze a successful outcome for clients. That is why in Solution-Focus the number of coaching sessions needed is typically 2, the number of therapy sessions needed is usually no more than 4. Again, it is no magic. It is economy of effort. Brief by definition.

So why don’t we drop the label “Solution-Focus” and just use “Brief-Coaching”?

That is what I often do. However, as soon as the conversation with a prospect gets started, you kind of need to qualify the word “brief”.

That is because, unfortunately, other approaches in therapy got to that word first: but they use it to convey a very different meaning.

For example, “Brief Psychodynamic Therapy” is  ”typically considered to be no more than 25 sessions (Bauer and Kobos, 1987). In the same page on the NIH website we read that “Crits-Christoph and Barber included models allowing up to 40 sessions.” (!!!)

When Psychodynamic Therapists talk about “Brief” they mean something of a different order of magnitude than what Solution-Focused Brief Therapists mean (40 vs. 4).

So we practice and teach “Brief Coaching”. But we often need to qualify it: “Solution-Focused Brief Coaching“.

Be Bold, Be Brief, Be Gone – Major Megan Malia-Leilani McClung, USMC

Tags: Brief, brief coaching, economy of effort, Insoo Kim Berg, Megan McClung, psychodynamic therapy, solution focused brief therapy, Solution-Focused Brief Coaching, what is essential

I strongly believe that the effectiveness of Solution-Focused practice is linked to its radical simplicity.

That is what makes Solution-Focused practices beautiful and elegant.

I also believe that what we are doing today is the seed of what we will be doing tomorrow.

In other words, Solution-Focused practice will one day be remembered as a stepping stone that led to a more comprehensive, even simpler, evidence-based and scientifically sound protocol for brief coaching and brief therapy.

Through careful observations of what works and taking cues from recent scientific discoveries so we can elaborate hypothesis, we have our work cut out for us.

I am not the only one thinking that we should move forward.

Here is what Michael Hjerth wrote recently, as a comment to an interview of Gale Miller:

In 2000 or something I asked Steve de Shazer if the work, discipline and research that led up to the model should be seen as a nescessary part of SF, or if SF could stand on it’s own, as described in his books. He clearly indicated that the process was part of it. So, going back to basics in SF is not going back to Steve’s or Insoo’s books. It means going back to hard (but probably delightful) work: disciplined observation, research, challenging yourself, practice. The name Solution focus isn’t to be taken to seriously. Steve always, at least when I asked him, really saw him self as a Brief Therapist first, and Solution focused second. So Therapy (help clients) done Briefly (using as little resources as possible) is key.

And here is what Coert Visser says in his blog, in a recent comment:

“Insoo Kim Berg once answered the following question: “Do you see the solution-focused approach as a finished approach or do you think it will keep on developing and changing?” She started laughing and answered right away in a don’t-be-silly kind of way: “Oh no, it’s not finished. For any model to stay alive it will need to constantly keep developing and renewing itself.” She smiled brightly and continued: “So, we need bright young people who will do that.”

Are we up to the task?

Tags: Coert Visser, developing, Insoo Kim Berg, Michael Hjerth, process, Solution Focused, Steve DeShazer