The subject of this paper is the solution-focused approach, an established approach to psychotherapeutic work with couples. The aim of this study is to present the possibilities of this approach particularly in negotiating preferred futures in working with couples. The first part, therefore, focuses on the basic principles of the solution-focused approach and the possibilities of applying it in couple psychotherapy. The author further presents different ways of negotiating preferred futures with both partners. He describes ways of developing a common vision of preferred future with partners and how to work together in situations where partners’ ideas about desirable change are different or even contradictory. A focus on preferred futures plays a central role in a solution-focused approach (Berg, 1994; de Shazer et al., 2007; Ratner et al., 2012; Reiter, 2017), and at the same time, it is in this context of couple therapy where many of the difficulties in negotiating arise (Hoyt & Berg, 1998). Although the focus of the article is on the application of a solution-focused approach, we can draw inspiration from it for work based on other psychotherapy approaches as well.

Solution-focused approach and couple therapy

Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) was developed in the 1980s by Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg and their colleagues at the Brief Family Therapy Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (USA). It draws on the tradition of family therapy (especially communication and strategic therapy associated with the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California) and the innovative work of Milton H. Erickson (de Shazer, 1985; Lipchik et al., 2012). The theory of SFBT is primarily inspired by postmodern ideas (social constructionism, poststructuralism) and complex systems theories; therefore, SFBT can be classified as a postmodern or systemic approach in psychotherapy (Becvar & Becvar, 2012; Lipchik et al., 2012; Tarragona, 2008).

SFBT has gradually become a widely respected psychotherapeutic approach (Becvar & Becvar, 2012; Sharf, 2020; Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2018), which has international associations (e.g., SFBTA, EBTA) and has been applied to a wide range of problems and clinical contexts (Dolan, 1991; Froerer et al., 2018; Pichot et al., 2009; Simon & Nelson, 2007). There are also numerous ongoing investigations into the efficacy and process of SFBT (Franklin et al., 2011, 2017; Kim et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). A solution-focused approach has also been applied to work with couples (Berg, 1994; Connie, 2012; Hoyt & Berg, 1998; Iveson, 2003; Reiter, 2017; Weiner-Davis, 1992, 2002; Ziegler & Hiller, 2001, 2007) and some research studies also point to its effectiveness in this context (Abusaidi et al., 2018; Davarniya et al., 2018; Franklin et al., 2011; Milner & Singleton, 2008).

There are also limitations of SFBT in the works with couples. Sometimes, SFBT is practiced in very „techniques-driven“ways that ignore emotions, therapeutic relationships, or co-creation of therapeutic conversations with clients (Lipchik, 2002, 2018; Reiter & Chenail, 2016). Also, the rush into solutions, sometimes ironically called “solution-forced therapy,“is a contra-productive way of working with clients, damaging working alliance (Berg, 2016; De Jong & Berg, 2012; Nylund & Corsiglia, 1994). There are also often quandaries about not-knowing (see below) and psychoeducation in SFBT, which may sometimes lead to extreme therapist conversational positions (Lipchik, 2018; Zatloukal, 2023). There are also critical remarks on not interpreting the causes of problems and not analyzing the power aspects of relationships in SFBT (Kogan, 1998). Although those perspectives can be valuable in some cases, for SFBT there are many pragmatic and theoretical reasons why solution-focused therapists do not normally use them and work differently with similar therapy outcomes (de Shazer et al., 2007; McKergow & Korman, 2009).

SFBT cannot be defined on the basis of some general theories or individual techniques. The developers of the approach propose to define this based on tenets that can be directly related to practice (de Shazer et al., 2007). Authors summarize tenets of SFBT this way (de Shazer et al., 2007):

1. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. This principle reminds therapists to aim for terminating cooperation with their clients at the proper time without further detaining or hindering them.
2. If it works, do more of it. This principle requires the therapist to intentionally and in a disciplined manner; focus on clients’ resources and strengths.
3. If it’s not working, do something different. This principle particularly challenges therapists to be able to let go of the security of their techniques and methods and look for new, creative and personalized ways of supporting their clients.
4. Small steps can lead to big changes. This principle leads us to seek small changes in therapy; changes which, albeit small, can lead to bigger changes in clients’ lives. Coupled with De Shazer’s belief that “change is an inevitable and dynamic part of everyday life” (de Shazer et al., 2007, p. xi), this principle brings a big amount of hope to the therapeutic work.
5. The solution is not necessarily directly related to the problem. This principle points out a crucial distinction in SFBT. The “problem-solving” (i.e. eliminating the problem) differs significantly from the “solution-development” (De Jong & Berg, 2012). “solution-development” means creating something new and valuable and is therefore connected with growth rather than centered on the reduction of the things usually referred to as “problems” or “symptoms.” As De Shazer comments: “This leads to a model of therapy that spends very little or even no time on the origins or nature of the problem, the client’s pathology, or analysis of dysfunctional interactions.” (de Shazer et al., 2007, p. 2)
6. The language of solution development is different from that needed to describe the problem. This tenet builds on the previous one by emphasizing the focus on language and its use.
7. No problem happens all the time. Bearing in mind that changes are inevitable, therapists assume, that there are always exceptions from the problem and they can be further utilized.
8. The future is both created and negotiable. The last tenet reminds us of the constructionist assumption of the social construction of reality, which again brings hope to the therapeutic endeavor: “People are not seen as locked into a set of behaviors based on a history, a social stratum, or a psychological diagnosis. With strong social constructionist support, this tenet suggests that the future is a hopeful place, where people are the architects of their own destiny.” (de Shazer et al., 2007, p. 3)

In terms of the therapeutic interventions, solution-focused couple therapy uses similar methods and techniques to those used in individual therapy. Widely known SFBT techniques like the miracle question, scales, exceptions, appreciation, end-of-session feedback open a dialogical space for constructive conversations with couples when both partners are involved (De Jong & Berg, 2012; Hoyt & Berg, 1998). However, solution-focused couple therapy differs in some respects from working with individuals. The fact that there is more than one client in the therapeutic room requires the therapist to pay special attention to:

• Neutrality - it is important for the therapist to avoid taking sides, or – positively speaking – to build working alliances with both partners simultaneously (Anderson, 1997; Friedlander et al., 2018; Ziegler & Hiller, 2001). It is important to validate both partners’ views and assume a “both/and” position (Bertolino & O’Hanlon, 2001; Lipchik, 2002). Anderson (1997) uses in this regard the term “multipartiality.”
• Structure - the more clients are present in a therapy session, the clearer the structure of the session needs to be and the better facilitative skills the therapist needs to have. A clear structure helps to build a working alliance with both partners because it 1) increases the likelihood that all participants will agree on the methods that are used in conducting the session, 2) helps prevent the participants from focusing and problems and starting to accuse or blame each other, 3) favors the creation an emotional climate of safety (Bedi et al., 2005; Friedlander et al., 2018; Lipchik, 2002).

Negotiating preferred futures in solution-focused couple therapy

In this text, attention is given to negotiating preferred futures in couple therapy. The term “preferred future” in SFBT refers to what the client would like to see happen with the help of therapy (Ratner et al., 2012). In other words, “all questions that are directed towards describing what the client wants (or what will replace what the client does not want) are preferred future questions” (Iveson et al., 2012, p. 43). These conversations about the client’s desires, or the “preferred future,“form a crucial part of SFBT.

Similarly, various manifestations of preferred future conversations are important in many other psychotherapy approaches. For instance, Alfred Adler already incorporated a “preferred future” question (simply called “The Question,” which reads: “What would you do if you were completely well? “) in his work (Wood, 2003). Current psychotherapy literature discusses focusing on goals or collaborative goal setting similarily (Cooper & Law, 2018). Focusing on the preferred future is also significant in terms of psychotherapy outcomes. An agreed preferred future negotiated between client and therapist (often referred to as “agreement on goals”) forms an important part of the working alliance (along with agreement on methods/tasks and emotional bond), which plays a significant role in the effectiveness of psychotherapy (Dimmick et al., 2022; Duncan et al., 2010; Flückiger et al., 2020).

The most well-known methods in SFBT to help develop a conversation about preferred futures include: a) common project, b) vision of preferred future, c) goal(s), d) sklil(s), e) value(s), and f) small signs of progress (De Jong & Berg, 2012; Ratner et al., 2012). A summary of the basic characteristics of each method is available in Table 1.

The preferred future in SFBT does not indicate something that the therapist wishes for clients or what the therapist thinks is right for clients and tries to convince them. The focus is centered on the clients’ wishes. The questions regarding preferred futures are not simple survey questions that allow therapists to learn information about clients’ wishes. Rather, they should be understood as a collaborative and creative process, a joint creation of meaningful direction for couple therapy (Strong, 2009; Weatherall & Gibson, 2015).

When working with couples, the extent to which partners agree or disagree on a preferred future comes into play in addition to the actual conduct of the conversation about the preferred future. In principle, the following variations can be distinguished:

• Common direction - partners’ shared vision of their preferred future (partners’ agreement on a common direction)
• Different directions - different partners’ ideas about their preferred future, which are complementary (or at least not mutually exclusive)
• Disagreement on direction - Conflicting ideas of partners on preferred future (mutually exclusive), disagreement between partners on common direction

Common direction in couple therapy

The following example shows an adaptation of a classic SFBT technique, the so-called “miracle question,” in working with couples. In this example, common direction evolved in the conversation.

Practical example 1: the magic dinner

I worked with a middle-aged couple who ran a restaurant in a major city. Although I initially focused on their expectations of couple therapy, they were both very immersed in the issues they were facing in their relationship. So I left them some space in which they described that the husband had returned from prison a few months earlier, where he had spent about two years for tax offenses. During that time, the wife said, she had become more independent and had taken up personal development, yoga, meditation, and similar things that the husband tended to disparage and describe as “nonsense.” Many conflicts and quarrels arose between the couple and they even seriously considered divorce.

Couple therapy was a “last chance” with the husband, in particular, being rather skeptical if therapy could help them. I tried to keep a stance of neutrality/multipartiality and listen carefully, particularly to any wishes or exceptions (see SFBT tenets 2 and 7). The only point in the first part of the session that seemed at least a little “alive” was when they described their restaurant and what they enjoyed about their work. After acknowledging the difficulty of their situation, I said, “I was intrigued by your description of your restaurant as a ‘magical place’ where people usually feel comfortable and you both like it too. Let’s suppose that maybe today or later, you are sitting together in your restaurant and have some of your favorite foods for dinner. Because the place is magical, somewhat magical things may happen there. Let’s assume that the food is also magical and somehow has a positive effect on the two of you and your relationship, so that you start to notice that something between you has started to change for the better. What will be the first thing that tells you that something has changed between you and within you?” After a moment of silence, the wife uttered, “I could see my husband smiling.” We bounced off that sentence and together explored what changes would occur in their relationship. The husband was skeptical at first and entered the conversation only minimally, but gradually both were drawn into the conversation and together they described situations in which they would laugh more, communicate better, respect each other’s different opinions, make love more often, and so on. During the consultation, the overall atmosphere of the session changed and we even laughed together a few times. The wife commented at the end of the session, saying that it was perhaps the first time she had seen her husband laughing since returning from prison (see SFBT tenet 8). I commented, saying that just talking about their magical dinner, little glimpses of that magic seemed to be brought out. At the next meeting, the couple reported some progress after they had gone out to dinner together (though they ultimately decided to dine at a different restaurant than their own). Both expressed hope that they could handle the situation and also a determination to work on their relationship. We subsequently had six more meetings, during which we were able to make fairly significant progress (see SFBT tenets 4 and 5).

The above example represents a situation where both partners began to agree on a common direction. They both wanted better communication, shared laughter, an improved sex life, and mutual respect. Both partners roughly shared a similar vision of their preferred future, i.e., an idea of how they want to live and function together. SFBT procedures known from individual therapy can be easily applied when the common direction is established. For example, one can track progress toward the preferred future using scales, focus on the instances of the preferred future, formulate small signs of progress, etc (Berg, 1994; de Shazer et al., 2007).

Sometimes different goals or skills are agreed upon for different partners within the same vision of the preferred future. For example, using the above practical example with some modification, the husband might focus on developing respect for what is important to his wife now, while the wife might focus primarily on some changes in the couple’s intimacy. In this case, the overall direction is shared, but each partner chooses his or her own way to contribute to this shared direction by learning something new (skill) or achieving something (goal). In couple therapy, it is often helpful that partners know about each other’s “projects,” and can support each other in them. (It is helpful to agree on a specific form of mutual support in advance during the session.) It is also beneficial if they can observe the changes that the other is making in his or her “project.” Although these are two relatively separate projects, they are focused on a shared vision of the couple’s preferred future and are interconnected. Moreover, the mutual support of partners in achieving a goal or learning a skill is itself a factor that strengthens their relationship with each other.

To work toward a preferred future in SFBT, partner agreement is welcome but not necessary. Some options for working with couples where such agreement on a preferred future has not occurred will be described below.

Different directions in couple therapy

Occasionally, when negotiating a preferred future, there is a situation in which each partner has their own vision of the preferred future (or part of it) which, although not directly shared, is acceptable to the other partner and is compatible with their idea of a preferred future. The option of two relatively separate visions with mutual support, while relatively rare, can also be worked with in a meaningful way. In such a case, it can be said that the development of the relationship is worked on indirectly through linking one partner to the proposed direction of the other, and through support of each partner.

Practical example 2: two skills

In couple therapy, I worked with middle-aged couple where two sessions failed to negotiate a preferred future. Despite my efforts to focus the conversation on the desires of both clients, the conversation veered more toward the difficulties they had experienced together (husband’s infidelity several years ago, loss of trust, disagreements about children, etc.). I tried to validate strong emotions on an ongoing basis and guide the conversation so that the partners listened to each other and did not interrupt each other. From time to time, I offered a focus on preferred futures. Seeing that this was not yet a direction to take, I again spent some time listening to both partners and highlighting the slightest hints of exceptions and resources (coping after the discovery of infidelity, areas where they were able to agree in their upbringing, etc.). These therapeutic strategies can be linked particularly to SFBT tenets 3 and 7. The third meeting eventually succeeded in formulating two areas of preferred future. As the husband often traveled for work and spent several days away from home, one of the areas was his returns home, where both partners agreed that it would be good to experience mutual attunement and expressions of joy in the encounter rather than the wife’s prickly or suspicious remarks and resentment. Another area was communication between partners during periods of the husband’s absence. It was very important for the wife and at the same time difficult for the husband to make phone calls, because, as an actor, he was usually at rehearsals or performances. Consequently, both partners decided to learn their skills – the wife learning to greet her husband more warmly on his return and the husband learning to look for opportunities to have at least brief yet meaningful phone calls when he was away from home. They supported each other in learning the skills and practiced them together, and we designed the “training” in a way that was fun for both of them and brought an element of humor and playfulness to their interactions.

Disagreement on direction

The biggest challenge in couple therapy is usually the variant where the direction of the two partners is different and, moreover, unacceptable to the partner. Thus, the direction of one goes against the direction of the other, so that it seems impossible to work with both at the same time. Such a situation can be described as a disagreement on direction. These situations are not uncommon in couple therapy (Hoyt & Berg, 1998; Iveson, 2003). Typical examples are situations where one partner wants a child and the other does not, or where one partner wants to break up while the other wants to continue (or save) the relationship. Similar directional discrepancies arise, for example, in situations where one partner wants to move for a lucrative job offer and the other does not, or where there is a fundamental disagreement about child rearing, religious life, sex life, etc.

These situations are probably the most challenging to the therapist’s neutrality/multipartiality. Sometimes, it is not easy to maintain openness, curiosity, and both/and attitude when clients present issues where disagreement emerges and at the same time, this issue resonates with the therapists and their life values. During the session it is important to notice and reflect on the moments when therapist tends to take sides and intentionally work on validation of the other position (Ziegler & Hiller, 2001). There are occasionally situations (e.g., coercions or domestic violence) when the therapist has to step out from neutrality and deal with some issue in a more “interventive” or directive way in correspondence with ethical and professional standards (Milner & Singleton, 2008; Stith et al., 2011). In this case, supervision plays an important role in helping therapists reflect on the situation and make good decisions.

One way to negotiate preferred futures in disagreement of directions is through a process of focusing on the intersection of preferred futures. In set theory, the intersection of sets A and B include all elements that are common to both sets. In couple therapy, the idea is to find as much common ground (intersection) as possible within the preferred futures of the two partners, even though the partners’ ideas are fundamentally different. Even if the intersection of preferred futures virtually forms a very small area, it can be a base for meaningful work with the couple.

Practical example 3: improving communication

I worked with a married couple where the husband desired to maintain and repair the relationship, while the wife wanted to divorce. As we spent some time exploring their wishes and ideas, it became clear that they shared a common thread – to improve communication. The husband perceived that if they wanted to continue the relationship and somehow make it work, their communication would need to improve. The wife understood the need to improve communication so that they would be able to agree on important things during and after the divorce regarding childcare and other matters. Although they had different reasons, they both agreed that improving communication could be a useful beginning goal for them to work together. Keeping a neutral position I asked: “Whether you decide to stay together and develop the relationship or break up with dignity, what should your communication look like?” During the course of the collaboration, I consistently focused on improving communication with both of them, leaving aside the direction their relationship would ultimately take. They agreed that it would be a good idea to improve communication between them first and then move on to deciding how to proceed with their relationship (see also SFBT tenets 4 and 6). After a few sessions, the couple described the improvement of their communication using specific situations to illustrate this. The wife even mentioned at the last meeting that she was considering the possibility of staying friends or perhaps getting back together at some point in the future. They both agreed that they were now able to get along much better and more calmly and share what was needed, and that they believed they could make good decisions together and know where to turn if necessary.

Another way to develop a preferred future in situations of disagreement on direction is to adopt a “both/and attitude” (de Shazer, 1985), that is, not to rule out any options in advance, but to explore all of them carefully and place them imaginatively side by side in the conversation. Detailed descriptions of each option (“What will it specifically look like?,” “What difference will it make?,” “What good will it do?” etc.) combined with the use of interwoven perspectives (“How will partner A know that…?,” “How will he react to this?”) can bring about a lessening of the dichotomy of “either this, or that.” Variants can be presented side by side and described with equal care, often revealing other creative options. Von Kibéd’s method known as the “Tetralemma” can also be used for this purpose (Sparrer, 2007). Not only this doesn’t reduce the number of options (from two to one), but on the contrary it expands the choices even further by including “option A,” then “option B,” then “neither A nor B,” “both A and B,” and sometimes neither of these. Such an assignment leads the partners to create a variant that combines both opposing options (A and B) or, conversely, a variant that includes neither option and is completely new, thus creating room for truly original ideas.

These variations can also be worked on by writing the variations down and placing the notes around the therapy room in agreement with the clients. We can then walk through the stations together and explore each variant, including feelings, thoughts, behaviors, and interactions. The aim of the technique is not to speed up decision-making, but to expand the dilemmatic options to include other choices, thus creating space for more creative and useful decisions.

Practical example 4: tetralema

I worked with a same-sex male couple in which there was a significant discrepancy in their sex life. While one partner felt very unsatisfied in terms of frequency of sex, the other partner felt pressured by the other and tended to withdraw and refuse sex. We used the Tetralemma. We prepared sheets of paper and on the first sheet I suggested capturing the first option, which after a short discussion clients called “hot nights.” On the second sheet of paper we then captured the second variant, which the clients called “minimalism.” I asked them which variant they wanted to explore first, and they chose “hot nights.” I suggested that they place the paper with the “hot nights” variant somewhere in the consultation room area, and they together put the paper on one place. Then we stood around the paper and explored what feelings were associated with this variant, and what thoughts, images, fantasies emerged. I asked what this particular variant would look like in their lives, and what other areas of their lives would be affected if they pursued this. After we had explored this variant in detail, the clients placed a paper with “minimalism” in the space, and again we stood around the paper and explored this with the same care. I then took another paper and stated that it was the “neither one nor the other” option and asked them to create it. After some thought, the clients labeled this “open relationship” option. We then worked with it in the same way as with the previous variants. Finally, I offered the last paper with the assignment “both A and B at the same time.” The clients called this option “weekend driving” and we worked with it similarly to the previous ones. In the next session, clients reported that while they had not fully implemented any of the variants we had created in the previous session, they agreed that they felt closer to each other and were showing more tenderness to each other (see SFBT tenet 8).

In some couple therapy sessions, where is a discrepancy in partners’ directions, the focus can be on examining their situation. However, this examination is done according to tenets of SFBT. Thus, it is not about exploring hypothetical causes of the disagreement, nor is it about analyzing the disagreement on direction per se (see SFBT tenets 5 and 6), but rather about capturing and developing even the smallest resources on which to build the work with the couple in future (see SFBT tenets 2, 4, and 7). Attention can be given to how the partners are functioning within the disagreement (for example, using the scale of their relationship functioning), or whether there are things they can agree on (exceptions to the problem), or what the benefits of the disagreement have been for the partners so far, as well as the negative consequences for all involved (variation of „nightmare question“ (Berg & Reuss, 1998)). These conversations provide a space for partners to express the difficulty of the situation, and may also offer clues for later negotiation of a preferred future (collaboration may later focus, for example, on reinforcing exceptions to the problem, on further improvements within the range of relationship functioning, or on considering both benefits and negative consequences when clients make further decisions about their direction in couple therapy).

Collaborative exploration of the temporal aspects, i.e., how much longer they want or can continue in the disagreement, may also provide interesting perspectives. For some couples, it may be important to agree on a clear time frame within which their direction can be unshaped and not yet clarified, especially in situations where one partner is not currently able to decide how to continue the relationship and the other partner needs to come to a decision as soon as possible (e.g., the discovery of infidelity by one of the partners). The negotiation of a time frame for a decision should be combined with both partners taking concrete steps within that period to reach a decision. One partner is usually taking concrete steps to clarify what is important to him or her, and the other is usually working to temporarily respect that process, not creating pressure to make a quick decision, but instead strengthening his or her ability to live a good life regardless of what the first partner ultimately decides. The negotiated time frame helps to avoid the pattern of creating more pressure to make a decision from one partner and reinforcing the “stuckness” of the indecisive partner (see SFBT tenet 3), while at the same time creating space for the emergence of a better and more responsible decision by both partners about the future direction (see SFBT tenet 8).

There are therapeutic conversations, when focusing on what helps them cope with this situation of directional disagreement is very helpful. This can be especially important in situations where one or both partners are in couple therapy involuntarily. Sometimes one partner (or even both partners) do not want therapy, but someone else of influence (an institution, religious authority, parent, etc.) perceives the need for change and sends them to couple therapy. Here, in addition to focusing on coping, exploring the wishes of the sending person or institution (“How does person/institution X know that the situation has improved enough that you no longer need to go to couple therapy?”) works well. In other cases, the partners themselves would welcome the change but have little confidence that therapy could help, which prevents them from formulating a preferred future. A focus on coping here can create some “featherbedding” before partners gain a little more confidence that change for the better might occur (see SFBT tenet 4).

Sometimes one or both partners need to test whether it makes sense to invest energy and effort in their relationship and try to improve it, or whether it is so “damaged” that it no longer makes sense to try to sustain and develop it. Personally, I find it much better to do such testing in the form of exploring exceptions or experiments between sessions, where the dynamics of the system are shown in practice (see SFBT tenets 2 and 3), rather than trying to solve this question in some theoretical way or from the position of a therapist giving an expert opinion.

Practical example 5: relationship investigation

I worked with a middle-aged married couple. The wife initiated the therapy and talked about wanting to improve communication. She also talked about broken trust. She discovered an extramarital affair ten years before, although the situation had managed to stabilize. The husband, a professional musician, spent a lot of time away from home. This, combined with poor communication, made the wife wonder if “something was going on again” and created some “relationship fatigue.” She also mentioned her husband’s alcohol problems. The husband said that he was very hesitant to go to couple therapy and that he was skeptical as to whether it could still help them. He felt continuously under scrutiny and that he and his wife had become estranged, especially after the children left home, and that they had little in common. They both questioned whether there was any point in trying to salvage their relationship, and if it would be better for them to go their separate ways. I explained that I needed additional information in order to answer their question in any serious way, otherwise it would be pure speculation. This intrigued them and they asked me what information I would need in order to give them an opinion. After some thought, I told them that I would need to know a few things:

1. Whether there were some moments in the way things are between them now that might be a little better (exceptions). The occurrence of exceptions and resources can give a good idea of whether or not change for the better is possible (see SFBT tenets 2 and 7).
2. Whether they were able to articulate what small changes for the better would look like and if they would be able to recognize improvements in their relationship (see SFBT tenets 5, 6, and 8).
3. Whether there would be any small but detectable changes for the better during the first few sessions of couple therapy (I justified this by saying that research (Duncan et al., 2010) shows that changes within the first few sessions are a fairly reliable predictor of therapy success, as opposed to diagnoses, personality traits of clients‘ characteristics, etc.). This point assumes at least three things: a) that we would implement around five couple sessions, b) that both would actually try to work on improving their relationship between sessions, and c) that both would monitor whether changes for the better were occurring and record these changes.

The points presented made sense to both partners, and we addressed points 1 and 2 in the first session and wrote them down. Regarding point 3, we agreed that we would schedule five sessions of couple therapy, roughly three weeks apart, during which time they would both be fully engaged in working on their relationship, and in the fifth session we would evaluate the progression. At the fifth session, we jointly assessed that some small changes had been made and the clients decided to continue to improve their relationship on their own, with an appointment for a “support session” if necessary.

Last but not least, individual sessions can be offered in case of a disagreement in the direction of the partners. Since I do not consider it appropriate to combine individual and couple sessions with the same clients, I usually proceed in similar cases by referring a colleague for individual sessions. This leaves open the possibility of continuing together in couple therapy. Sometimes it happens that I agree to work with one of the partners individually, but this closes the possibility of working with the other partner individually and the possibility of working with the couple together again in the future. However, if necessary, I can again recommend other couple therapists.

Table 2 summarizes the different options for working with the preferred future mentioned before. In general, I find it useful to follow the top-down framework of the table, i.e., to primarily focus on formulating a common vision of the preferred future of both parties, but only when this route proves impossible to focus on other options for working with the preferred future.

Conclusion

Negotiating preferred futures plays an important role in directing couple therapy, strengthening the alliance, and increasing the hope that couple therapy will be helpful. Options for articulating a shared idea of a couple’s preferred future were presented, as well as options for how to proceed when ideas about preferred futures differ or when disagreements arise between partners about direction. Individual examples from practice show that this is not just about pre-prepared “smart questions” but rather the art of developing conversations with clients in couple therapy in such a way that they can gradually clarify what is important to them and what further direction in the relationship makes sense to them.