Practice · Length of therapy
There is a paradoxical piece of common sense in therapeutic work: we know when therapy begins, but rarely when it should end. Some approaches are designed to last — psychoanalysis being the emblematic example. Others claim to be brief, geared to precise goals. And yet, even in those shorter forms, the work sometimes stretches out, carries on, thickens… occasionally to the point of losing sight of its own horizon.
This is no taboo: the length of a therapy is not determined solely by the patient’s difficulties or by the model being used. It is also shaped by the relational dynamic, that is, by what plays out between two people engaged in a work of transformation.
And sometimes, with no intention on either side, that dynamic can accidentally encourage… continuation.
In clinical practice, certain signals come up again and again. They are not criteria for judgement, but points of vigilance that invite us to adjust our stance, our methods and the quality of the bond.
With no clear course, therapy becomes a space of perpetual exploration. Useful at the start, risky when it continues without any structure.
We enter… but we do not know on what basis we leave. Neither what will mark the end of the process, nor how that end will be named, ritualised, prepared.
A frequent paradox: the session becomes a refuge, a space where one can breathe… but whose effects fade outside it.
The therapist becomes a third party required for action — sometimes to the point of preventing it. Autonomy stiffens instead of widening.
When the relationship becomes asymmetrically oriented towards approval, the work loses its power. It is no longer “I am changing”, but “I am complying”.
Themes are added, the work is extended, new chapters are opened while the initial goals have already been reached.
The fear of hurting the other person, even when that person is a professional, is a valuable signal. It says something about the place the therapist takes within the system.
One therapist asks, at the start of every piece of work, a question I find profoundly apt.
“How will we know that the road we have travelled together has come to its end?”
This question is not a formality. It is a way of placing autonomy at the heart of the process, from the very first meeting.
In systemic and strategic approaches, thinking about the “way out” is not a sign of disengagement: it is the recognition that the therapeutic relationship is a transitional space, not a permanent structure.
Naming the ending means opening a passage. It means telling the patient: “We are not building a place for you to live in, but a place from which you will be able to set off again.”
Unintentionally prolonging a therapy is not professional misconduct. But it is a systemic phenomenon to be taken seriously.
A therapy that drags on for no reason
Creates a subtle dependency, sustains relational dynamics that are reassuring but limiting, gives the therapist too central a role, and slows down — or even prevents — the resumption of initiative.
A therapy that ends at the right moment
Strengthens agency, the capacity to decide, self-confidence, emotional mastery, and awareness of one’s internal as well as external resources.
I take up this question of the right length in the video below — in French.
How to cite this article
Besse, J. (2025, November 23). When therapy drags on…. Complexe Systémique. https://app.complexe-systemique.com/en_GB/articles/when-therapy-drags-on
To go further
Comments 0
Log in to join the discussion. Log in