The term “preferred future” coined in solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) refers to conversations focused on what the client would like to see happen with the help of therapy (Ratner et al. 2012). In other words, “any questions that lead the client to describe something they want (or describe what would replace what they don’t 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. Current psychotherapy literature discusses focusing on goals or collaborative goal setting in the same manner (Cooper & Law 2018; Miller & Rollnick 2012; Strong 2009). In some methods, there is an emphasis on discussing values (Harris 2019; LeJeune & Luoma 2020), life’s meaning (Frankl 2006), preferred storylines (Béres 2014), the characteristics of a fully functioning individual (Renger & Macaskill 2021), or on contracting (Lapworth & Sills 2011). 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; Wampold & Imel 2015). Despite the emphasis on emotional bonding, the importance of goal and task (method) dimensions are sometimes overlooked, even though they are just as vital (Duncan et al. 2010; Geurtzen et al. 2020). Numerous studies underscore the therapeutic value of client-set goals, especially when they are explicitly defined together with the therapist at the therapy’s outset and are continuously revisited and adjusted as required (Geurtzen et al. 2020; Tryon et al. 2018; Tryon & Winograd 2011). As Dimmick et al. note, disruptions in the area of goals and methods occur more frequently than disruptions in emotional bonding, and the correction of these disruptions presents a comparative challenge (Dimmick et al. 2022).

This text describes different ways to focus on preferred futures in SFBT conversations, and how to connect or develop these different ways when appropriate. In accordance with SFBT assumptions (De Jong and Berg 2008; de Shazer 1994; de Shazer et al. 2007; Ratner et al. 2012), the main emphasis here is on preferred future conversations as therapist’s and clients’ collaborative endeavor rather than on isolated questions or “techniques”.

The text’s first section briefly introduces several key SFBT methods for collaboratively constructing the client’s preferred futures. The second part examines possible connections and transitions among different methods of working with preferred futures. Both sections include relevant case examples. It is important to note that while some of these methods are described variously in SFBT literature, they are not commonly summarized, compared, or interconnected. This attempt to do so creates a sort of “map”, allowing for greater flexibility and opening up more possibilities for working with the preferred future. Though this text focuses on SFBT, the individual procedures discussed can be applied in any approach that emphasizes a focus on a preferred future.

Forms of Work with Preferred Futures in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

SFBT evolved from the clinical practice of Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg, and their colleagues at the Brief Family Therapy Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, during the early 1980s (Gingerich & Eisengart 2000). Its development was heavily influenced by family therapy, particularly by the work of the Mental Research Institute, and the work of Milton H. Erickson (de Shazer 1985). As the name suggests, this approach primarily focuses on solutions, synonymous with desired change (Zatloukal and Tkadlčíková 2020). Miller and de Shazer wrote, “One of the most important reasons for therapy is to help clients change their lives. It is a justification for therapy and a test of it.” (Miller and de Shazer 1998, p. 3). The process of change is the main focus of SFBT theory, research, and practice (Korman et al., 2020; Lipchik et al. 2012). From this perspective, the emphasis on the co-construction of preferred futures in SFBT is highly meaningful (Bavelas et al. 2013). It augments clients’ hope and motivation, supports cooperation between clients and therapists, and assists in determining when to conclude a successful therapeutic endeavor (de Shazer et al. 2007). The significance of preferred futures in SFBT is so immense that it is occasionally misleadingly referred to as future-oriented therapy, though SFBT also focuses on the present and the past in specific ways (de Shazer et al. 2007; Ratner et al. 2012).

In the early stages of SFBT, the primary focus was on collaborative goal formulation (de Shazer 1988). The goal, co-designed by therapist and client, was intended to positively affect the therapy outcome and aid both parties in determining the success of the therapy. Without established goals, therapy could potentially continue indefinitely (de Shazer 1988). As SFBT evolved, however, more emphasis was placed on flexibility while dealing with preferred futures (Peller & Walter 2000). Some authors began to incorporate terms such as “clarifying goals/goaling” (Lipchik 2002) or “preferencing” (Peller and Walter 2000) to emphasize that (re)negotiated goals can shift in the course of therapeutic collaboration. Consequently, achieving these goals with clients is not the primary focus; instead, it is about staying on track toward what the client desires (Walter and Peller 1994). A more extensive repertoire of methods and the capacity to switch seamlessly between strategies during client interactions also contribute to increased flexibility in dealing with preferred futures (Strong 2009).

The text presents six basic forms of working with preferred futures in SFBT: (1) Common Project, (2) Vision of Preferred Future, (3) Goal(s), (4) Skill(s), (5) Values, and (6) Small Signs of Progress.

It should be noted that the various methods of interacting with the preferred future are not distinctly segregated and the SFBT literature occasionally employs inconsistent terminology to describe them. Each style of working with the preferred future is discussed in this text, accompanied by a brief introduction and definition, sample questions, and case examples. These elements can aid in facilitating a conversation around each form of the preferred future and offer a more nuanced perspective on the co-constructive nature of these discussions.

Common Project

“Common Project” is a term formulated by Harry Korman that delineates the fundamental agreement on the shared, or mutual, direction of a therapist and client (Korman 2017). This concept can also be referred to as a “contract” or “best hopes” conversation (Ratner et al. 2012; Shennan 2014). A common project contains four essential parameters (Korman 2017; Ratner et al. 2012; Shennan 2014):

• It is based on the client’s wishes. The common project represents something the client wants to achieve or change in their life.
• It corresponds with the therapist’s offer. What the client wants to achieve or change must fall within an area the therapist is willing and able to work on with the client (the therapist’s ethical perspective and qualifications are particularly important here).
• The focus is on the outcome of collaboration. It is important to distinguish between the means and the outcome, the question of the common project consistently focuses on the outcome of the collaboration (changes in the client’s life) and not on the means to achieve the outcome.
• It can be achieved. What the client wants to achieve or change must be something that can be achieved if the therapist and client work together successfully, i.e., something that can be expected to change through therapeutic conversation.

A common project can apply to a positive outcome in a specific session or to the end of the collaboration in its entirety, which might include multiple sessions. The negotiation of this common project with clients is typically addressed in SFBT at the beginning of a therapy session, just after the small-talk (De Jong & Berg 2008). This is because it establishes a general framework for collaboration (Korman 2017).

Examples of Relevant Questions

"After today’s session, maybe today or tomorrow, what would have to change for you – even something small - for you to be able to say it helped you?"

"What are your best hopes from coming here?"

"What do you most want to create in your life?"

Case Example 1: More Peace at home

All case examples are short excerpts from real therapeutic practice of the author. author had asked clients for their consent and lay on their confidentiality. T stands fot therapist, C for Client. If the case Example is a Transcript of the Session, Utterances are Numbered for Better Orientation

The client is an 11-year-old boy, his mother was also present at the session.

1. T: “What I’m wondering now, though, is what might the purpose of this meeting be… How will you know, maybe today or in the next few days… that it was useful here?”
2. C: “If we are not arguing so much at home…”.
3. T: “If you’re not arguing at home… How would you know that it’s better and that there’s less arguing? What would be different?”
4. C: “There would be more peace and quiet at home, then it would be fine.”
5. T: “More peace and quiet at home, hmmm… would that be something that would be a good outcome of us working together here?”
6. C: “Yeah. Definitely.”

As this example illustrates, a common project can emerge quickly in a conversation and may be formulated ambiguously. This ambiguity is intentional – the common project is designed to provide a broad framework for collaboration, offering guidance without unnecessarily constraining potential outcomes (Ratner et al. 2012; Ratner & Yusuf 2015). Consequently, discussions about this common project often result in general statements such as “I want to feel better”, “I want to be cool again”, “I want to be calm in the evenings”, or “I want to get along better with my partner”. The simple shift in the conversation’s focus from problems to a preferred future is a significant step towards developing solutions. Several options exist for progressing this conversation in a SFBT context.

Preferred Future Vision

A rich and detailed account of the client’s desired outcome is commonly referred to as a vision of the preferred future (Ratner et al. 2012; Shennan 2014). This term points to a thick description of an alternative way of life for the client in which current issues are no longer prominent (Ratner et al. 2012). While a common project provides a general framework for guiding therapy toward a desired outcome, a vision of a preferred future paints a more elaborate and vivid image of what this outcome entails. However, this vision does not necessarily frame this outcome within a specific timeframe or by the end of a given session or series of sessions.

The vision of the preferred future should meet several characteristics (Ratner et al. 2012; Shennan 2014; Stith et al. 2012):

• Concreteness and detail.Concreteness and detail are crucial. Client descriptions should be exceedingly specific and detailed. Therapists should not settle for mere general statements, and should instead demonstrate therapeutic curiosity. In many cases, they should guide clients in a manner reminiscent of imagery. The preferred future vision ought to be described “widely” (Zatloukal & Tkadlčíková 2020). This suggests that descriptions should incorporate not only behavioral terms but also account for feelings, thoughts, bodily experiences, and interactions with other people (de Shazer et al. 2007; Lipchik 2002).
• Positive formulations. Descriptions of what the client wants should be formulated as something likely to happen (“I will be calmer”), not as something that will not happen (“I will not be afraid”), or something that will occur less often or to a lesser extent (“I will be less afraid”).
• Process, not state (sequential description). The vision for the preferred future should be characterized as a process (akin to an imaginative video or narrative), rather than a fixed state (similar to an imagined static image). This can be structured as a single extended sequence or several shorter sequences.
• Difference in the context of the client’s everyday life. The vision of the preferred future should be depicted as a substantial deviation from the current state as it presents itself in daily life situations.
• Relate to the outcome, not the present. Much like a common project, the vision of the preferred future should separate the outcome from the means to achieve it. The vision of a preferred future is grounded in the point where the issue is resolved or when the client has accomplished their desired outcome – this can be compared to a person rewinding a movie to a scene halfway through and watching from that point. Conversely, forging a vision of a preferred future disregards everything that occurred before that point in the hypothetical film, i.e., how the client transitioned from the current situation to the preferred future. Contrary to common projects that focus on the outcome of a particular session or the end of the therapist and client collaboration, working with a vision of a preferred future can shift focus to any point in the future, irrespective of the collaboration’s progression with the client.
• Absorption.Working with a vision of a preferred future was originally a hypnotic technique known as the crystal-ball technique (de Shazer 1985; O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis 2003). If executed proficiently, it should induce a form of ‘trance’ – an experiential ‘immersion’ experienced by both the client and therapist in the process. Occasionally, the term “vision” is supplanted by “dream” to highlight the absorbing quality of this style of conversation (Furman and Ahola 2007).

Examples of Relevant Questions

The Miracle Question (de Shazer et al. 2007, p. 37): “Now, I want to ask you a strange question. Suppose that while you are sleeping tonight and the entire house is quiet, a miracle happens. The miracle is that the problem which brought you here is solved. However, because you are sleeping, you don’t know that the miracle has happened. So, when you wake up tomorrow morning, what will be different that will tell you a miracle has happened and the problem which brought you here is solved?”

Tomorrow question (Ratner et al. 2012, p. 94): “Suppose you wake up tomorrow morning and your hopes (a common project) are achieved. What will you begin to notice?”

“Imagine you’re getting into a time machine. And this time machine will transport you to the future, to the exact future moment when what you want from our sessions is already starting to happen. What do you see, feel, and do? Who are you with? How is your life different than it was?”

Case Example 2: The Exam

I was working with a client who was gearing up for a notary examination. She had attempted it before and, by her admission, had “fallen apart” and “humiliated herself”. After spending several months in preparation, the looming deadline began to trigger signs of severe stress; she had trouble eating, was plagued by disrupted sleep, experienced issues with her partner due to her outbursts, and so on. She expressed a wish to navigate the entire exam day without any slip-ups and voiced fear of repeating past embarrassments. To address her concerns, I suggested the miracle question (as stated previously), proposing that the “miracle” would enable her to undergo the examination without feeling embarrassed. As the client visualized the miracle with her eyes closed, she vividly depicted her morning routine at the hotel (because the examination center was in a different city), her meal plan, the route to the exam venue (which was familiar from her past attempt), her wait outside the exam hall, the actual examination process, and the period post-examination. At every crucial interval, we paused so that she could map out her actions, thoughts, feelings, and interactions with others. I interspersed her narrative with scenarios that might not be entirely favorable (such as inclement weather, a tough question, or an unpleasant committee member), and we brainstormed how the miracle, aiding her to “navigate the exam without feeling embarrassed”, would unfold under these challenging circumstances. Our discussion led to the creation of several alternative “scenarios” for the day after the miracle. This topic consumed our entire therapy session. At the close of our conversation, the client reported feeling considerably more composed and confident about coping with the situation. In the subsequent session, she mentioned significant improvements – she had enhanced focus, experienced tranquility, and enjoyed better sleep. We worked collaboratively to amplify these changes. She managed the actual exam quite competently, responding adeptly to even the toughest questions and keeping her composure intact despite encountering a question she was uncomfortable with. Although she did not score the requisite points and had to re-attempt the exam the following year, she carried a sense of pride because she not only managed to get through the exam but did so without crumbling or feeling embarrassed.

Goals

Goal represent something significant and explicitly stated that the client desires to achieve (Furman and Ahola 2007; Iveson et al. 2012). If the vision of a preferred future can be compared to a video or a story unfolding post-change, a goal could be more likened to a photograph or picture because it is more static, presenting a specific endpoint to be reached.

Within the tradition of the solution-focused approach, goals initially occupied a privileged place. Most other tools, such as a common project, a vision of a preferred future, or even surprisingly, scales, were viewed merely as aids to construct “well-formed goals” (de Shazer 1988). However, the later developments in SFBT saw a gradual diminishing of the emphasis on goals, being replaced by alternate methods of working with preferred futures, particularly the vision of a preferred future (Shennan 2014). One major drawback of goals is that they bind the therapist and the client too closely to a single specific endpoint. This can pose a challenge if the need arises to reformulate the goals, as it can potentially be misconstrued as failure (“we did not reach the goal”).

The formulation of goals in SFBT has several different guidelines (De Jong and Berg 2008; de Shazer 1988), and there are four key aspects of well-formed goals highlighted here:

• The goal is specific. It must be articulated as precisely as possible so that it can be vividly visualized and it is evident when it has been achieved.
• The goal is formulated positively.Instead of focusing on what the client will not do, it emphasizes what they will do. This notion aligns with the principle outlined by De Shazer 1991), stating a goal should be defined not as the termination or decrease of a particular behavior (e.g., “I will eat fewer sweets”), but as the initiation or growth of a desirable one (e.g., “I will eat healthier food”).
• The goal is realistic and achievable.In formulating a goal, we focus consistently on what the client believes can reasonably be accomplished. A well-articulated goal strikes a balance between being challenging and realistic (achievable). While it is permissible for a vision of a preferred future to include unrealistic or fantasy elements, especially for children (Ratner & Yusuf 2015), the goals themselves should be formulated as attainable.
• The goal is in the hands of the clients. The goal rests in the hands of the clients. This criterion is somewhat related to the previous one. The goal should not focus on the actions of others or rely on fortuitous circumstances beyond the client’s control – even though such circumstances may realistically occur. Instead, the goal should encompass only what the client can directly control or significantly influence.

Examples of Relevant Questions

“What exactly will it look like when the goal is achieved?”

“How can you tell if you have reached the goal?”

“What will be different in your life when you reach the goal?”

Case Example 3: A New Perspective

This brief example is from a session with a 30-year-old man who complains about his “terrible jealousy”.

1. C: “I’m terribly jealous of my girlfriend… I’ve made a big scene a few times, and it makes me feel like an idiot… everyone tells me it’s stupid… even my girlfriend has told me a few times that it’s unbearable and that I can’t go on like this… but I just can’t help it.”.
2. T: “I hear that jealousy brings you a lot of trouble, what would you like to have instead?”
3. C: “Well… I’d like not to be jealous of her anymore, not to act like an idiot.”.
4. T: “Then what would you like to have instead of jealousy? Some peace of mind? Or would you like to be indifferent to your girlfriend? Or… I don’t know…”.
5. C: “Well, it’s not indifference, it’s more like having some new perspective, dealing with things more easily”.
6. T: “What would that new perspective look like?”… (specifics of the goal are being worked out from there).

In this excerpt, it was particularly important to focus on the future instead of the problem (2). The client tended to concentrate on what he did not want (3), so I assisted him by presenting various alternatives (4). I purposefully selected options that would steer the direction of the conversation and inspire him to identify his own objectives, rather than trying to mirror the client’s exact wishes (5).

Skills

The focus on skills is especially common in the SFBT model of working with children, known as Kids’ Skills, where the model’s authors recommend a particular emphasis on skills for younger children (Furman 2004). From my experience, formulating skills can suitably apply to any age. Skills are occasionally confused with goals – while goals delineate a specific achievement target, a skill articulates something the client needs to master to better their circumstances (Zatloukal et al. 2020).

The skill encompasses four parameters that guide its negotiation with clients (Zatloukal et al. 2020):

• The skill is formulated positively.The skill should be formulated as something to be, not as something not to be.
• The skill is realistic. The skill is something the client can realistically learn.
• The skill is desirable. The perspective of not only the client but also significant others is considered when formulating the skill. Optimally the skill itself is valuable to the client even if it does not lead directly to a solution to the problem.
• The skill can be practiced. The skill is formulated as something that can be practiced and improved, something you can develop some training plan to work on.

The first three points have similarities with the criteria for well formulated goals; however, they refer to something the client can learn (a skill) rather than something the client can achieve (a goal). The fourth criterion is exceptionally specific. The skill must be formulated in a way that permits practice. This involves (1) choosing an innately trainable skill (for instance, “being cool” is inherently challenging to practice, but “learning to handle stress with a smile” or “learning to go to the nearby shop” are more trainable skills); and (2) choosing a skill where the conditions needed for its practice can easily fit into the client’s lifestyle. For instance, if a child wants to learn how to manage stress calmly at school, but is currently on holiday break, then they may not have the opportunity to practice this skill, or they might need to find an alternative way to do so.

Illustrative examples of potential goals and skills are presented in Table 1. It is important to note that neither goals nor skills are directly connected to a problem (the column labeled ‘problem’ simply provides a basic context for contemplating possible goals and skills). This is done to highlight that there is not just one “correct” goal or skill for each problem context. For this reason, multiple examples of possible goals and skills are given in Table 1.

Examples of Relevant Questions

“What do you need to learn to change things for the better?”

“What skill do you need to learn to overcome your problems?”

“What would you like to practice to feel better?”

Case Example 4: Learning to Get to Work Faster

I worked with a 40-year-old ophthalmologist who complained of “OCD symptoms”. These symptoms were most pronounced when she was leaving for work, as she would return several times to verify that all doors were locked, no water was leaking, no gas was left on, and so forth. Occasionally, she would return more than ten times, spending over 30 min repeatedly verifying. Even at work, she was frequently anxious and prone to rechecking various concerns. Upon querying about what she would like to learn to ameliorate her situation, she reflected briefly and stated that she wanted to develop the skill to arrive at work faster. As we delved further into what this new skill would entail, she expressed that she would like to only verify all critical aspects once, which should take no longer than 5 min, subsequently allowing her to feel relaxed. I observed that her skills seemed two-pronged – being able to get to work faster and finding a way to feel relaxed. I then inquired as to which aspect she would like to initiate. She chose to start with the former. As we detailed this new skill and the associated training, the client devised several strategies - she produced a checklist of items to review before leaving home and implemented a policy that items once checked would not be rechecked, we employed a visualization exercise reminiscent of the crystal ball technique (de Shazer 1985), where she visualized the detailed process of departing promptly from the house, we also included her husband in the process for assistance and support. He also agreed to stay at home less often in the morning (she was generally less anxious when he was home, but it prevented her from practicing the skill). In our subsequent meeting, the client reported that she had seen some progress in departing promptly for work, although there were a few instances of delay. We together reinforced her progress and prepared her to deal with potential setbacks. After a few sessions, the client managed to depart for work promptly and expressed interest in focusing on feeling more calm at work. Even though her ability to be calm had improved when she practiced the first skill, she sought to enhance her sense of calmness, especially in situations when she knew her husband was not at home and it was late in the afternoon (i.e., the apartment had been unoccupied for an extended period).

Values

Values can be defined as “the worth, usefulness, or importance attached to something” (VandenBos 2015, p. 1129). The conversation about client values are infrequently directly described in the SFBT literature. Despite the lack of direct references to values in SFBT, they implicitly underpin many themes explored in SFBT conversations. They are seen in the vision of the preferred future (De Jong & Berg 2008; Ratner et al. 2012), identity focus (Shennan 2014), benefits seeking (Furman 2004), goal negotiation (Kirschenbaum 2013; Lipchik 2002), descriptions of change’s significance (Peller & Walter 2000), “small-talk” (De Jong & Berg 2008; Zatloukal et al. 2020), emphasis on exceptions/instances (De Jong & Berg 2008), and gratitude (Isebaert 2016). This section will specifically focus on conversations pertinent to the area of values and their clarification (Kirschenbaum 2013). Essentially, these discussions concentrate on what is important (valuable, meaningful) to the client or the kind of person they aspire to become.

Examples of Relevant Questions

“What kind of person do you want to be?”

“What is important to you in life?”

“What matters to you? What do you want to matter to you?”

In addition to the basic queries above and emerging conversations, the emphasis on values in SFBT is frequently associated with experiential techniques. These may encompass activities such as drawing, visualization, meditation, or even some form of ritual. Some examples include (Bannink 2010; Dolan, 1991, 2000; Isebaert 2016; Kirschenbaum 2013; LeJeune & Luoma 2020; Peller & Walter 2000):

• The imagery of an older and wiser self, coupled with messages about what might be supportive and significant for the present self.
• Imagining one’s funeral, selected speakers lead the eulogy (e.g., a family member, friend, someone from work, and someone from leisure activity, church, etc.), and the client is invited to imagine what they would like to hear about themselves in these speeches and what they would like to hear about their contribution to these people’s lives.
• Client writing a letter to themselves from the future.
• Imagining the client has won the lottery and has no financial constraints - what they would change in their life?
• Imagine that the client has the last few weeks of their life - what would they focus on?

Conversations like these directly reveal what matters most to clients. Unlike goals or skills, values are something that are inherently present and that the client can further pursue in their lives to achieve greater satisfaction (LeJeune & Luoma 2020).

Case Example 5: Grandchildren

I was working with a 58-year-old woman who was experiencing a protracted period of depression following the sudden demise of her husband. Every question I asked about her future was met with an overwhelming sense of helplessness, and her feelings of sadness and hurt resurfaced consistently throughout our discussions. However, during our third meeting, she shared that her daughter was expecting a baby - it was the first time I would seen her smile. Consequently, I shifted our conversation towards her grandchildren. We mused over how many grandkids she had, their shared experiences, and how often they visited each other. While she opened up during this discussion, she also expressed sadness at being unable to spend much time with her grandkids due to her mental health difficulties. Later, I encouraged her to imagine a time when her grandkids, including the soon-to-be newest member, were grown up. I asked her to consider what she would pass on to them, how her experiences could educate them during tough times, what her legacy would constitute, and what she treasured about her relationship with her grandkids. This brief, practical exercise allowed her to reconnect slowly with her values and aspirations. She described the experience by equating her grandchildren to a “compass, guiding her in her journey”.

Small Signs of Progress

While common projects, visions of the preferred future, goals, and skills basically relate to major changes and shifts, small signs of progress serve as subtle but meaningful indicators of positive change, which are the initial signs that things are progressing in the desired direction. They hold the advantage of allowing a focus on preferred futures, even for clients who remain skeptical about substantial improvements or struggle with envisioning them. Therapeutic conversations about small signs of progress are facilitated the same way as the vision of the preferred future previously discussed; the sole difference lies in concentrating on minor improvements rather than a situation where the client meets their best hopes or the problem resolves completely.

At this point, it is valuable to distinguish between small signs of progress and small steps. Small signs of progress pertain to a scenario where a slight improvement has already made a difference from the existing situation (outcome), while small steps refer to minor actions that need to be taken to advance. In SFBT, small steps are more closely tied to end-of-session feedback (De Jong & Berg 2008) than to preferred future discussions.

At this point, it is useful to highlight the difference between small signs of progress and small steps. Small signs of progress describe a situation where a small improvement and difference from the current situation has already occurred (outcome), while small steps describe something small that needs to be done to move forward and in SFBT are closely related to end-of-session feedback (De Jong & Berg 2008; Furman & Ahola 2007) than to preferred future conversations.

Examples of Relevant Questions

“What would be a sign to you that things have gotten a little better?”

“What could be a sign that will tell you that you have moved a little closer towards your goal (skill, common project, vision of your preferred future…)?”

“What will be the very first sign that will help you realize that things have started moving in a positive direction?”

Case Example 6: Putting Myself Together

This short excerpt comes from an interview with a 55-year-old client who complained of alcohol problems.

1. T: “How will you know our meeting was somehow useful for you?”
2. C: “I need to put myself together somehow”.
3. T: “What’s something small that would be a very clear sign to you that things are starting to get a little better and you’re starting to put yourself together?”
4. C: “Probably that I could go a whole day without drinking (alcohol)”.
5. T: “Please try to give me a little bit of an idea of what that would look like specifically… at what point in that day would you have first said to yourself, ‘Hmm, it seems to be getting a bit better and I’m starting to put myself together’?” … (followed by a detailed description of the small signs of progress).

Especially with clients who feel overwhelmed by issues, it is beneficial to concentrate on small changes that signify a positive shift is underway (3). Any specific factor the client brings up can be explored by focusing on detailed descriptions (5).

Putting it Together – Towards Flexibility in Work with Preferred Futures

Six methods for developing a description of what clients want were presented: a common project, a vision of a preferred future, goals, skills, values, and small signs of progress. This section aims to outline the various ways to transition flexibly from problem description to different forms of envisioning preferred futures, and the possibilities for transitioning between different methods of conversations about preferred futures with clients.

Transitions from Problem Descriptions to Different Forms of Working with the Preferred Futures

Many SFBT therapists argue that solutions are not derived from problems (de Shazer 1988), and therapists can formulate solutions together with clients, regardless of whether they know the specifics of the problem (De Jong & Berg 2008; Shennan 2014). One can commence the conversation with the client using any preferred future method previously described, without even mentioning the problem. This approach to conducting sessions is highly effective, straightforward, and elegant (McKergow 2016; Ratner et al. 2012). Conversely, clients may sometimes provide problem descriptions in response to well-phrased preferred future questions (Choi 2019, 2020; Ozeki 2002). While this does not always occur, as demonstrated by previous case examples, SFBT therapists need to know how to navigate such scenarios. The ability to engage in a dialogue about preferred futures, especially when clients feel overwhelmed by their problems, is a fundamental skill in SFBT (De Jong & Berg 2008; de Shazer 1988; Lipchik 2002; Ozeki 2002). The various possible transitions from discussing the problem to explaining the client’s preferred future are outlined in Table2. If one method does not succeed, alternative routes are still accessible. Naturally, the practical application of these transitions from problem to preferred future dialogue must be suitably contextualized and should be timed well, prioritizing collaboration with the client (working alliance) over any specific technique (De Jong & Berg 2008; Lipchik 2002; O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis 2003).

The transitional processes, which are largely well-documented in SFBT literature, were addressed earlier. Research in psychotherapy emphasizes the significance of establishing a shared direction for therapy, although there is no significant difference in the chosen method of working with preferred futures between the therapist and the client. As stated by Iveson et al., “Whether the miracle question or any other question, is used is of no importance; what is important is that the client is successfully invited to describe some aspect of preferred future since being able to do so is associated with good outcomes” (Iveson et al. 2012, p. 43). This invitation to describe preferred futures can sometimes be challenging for clients to accept, and conversations focused on preferred futures demand a considerable level of “discursive flexibility” and related skills from the therapist (Gale & Newfield 1992; Shennan 2014; Strong 2009). Therefore, utilizing different variations of preferred futures work enhances the likelihood that the client will accept the invitation in some form, allowing the conversation to center on describing and co-creating the preferred futures.

Transitions Between Different Forms of Work with Preferred Futures

While the previous section concentrated on the transitions between problem descriptions and various dialogue options regarding preferred futures, this section is devoted to the transitions among different aspects of working with preferred futures in relation to one another. These shifts can be especially beneficial in instances where there is a desire to enrich and extend work related to preferred futures by introducing new aspects, or conversely, to streamline (“narrow”) and intensify the focus (Zatloukal & Tkadlčíková 2020). Various combinations can be located in Table3, beginning at the second row and continuing in the subsequent rows.

Transitions between a common projects and visions the preferred future are quite common (line 2, column 2). An example of what this might look like in practice is as follows.

Case Example 7: The Magic Nursery

The therapeutic session took place in a nursery during a workshop on solution-focused therapy for the staff. A 30-year-old woman, who had spent some time there as an intern during her studies, was invited as a client to the workshop several years later. At the beginning of the session, she described this nursery as “magical”. This notion was later utilized in the session (see utterance 7).

1. T: “I’m very curious, what are your best hopes from this session?” (question for a common project).
2. C: “Probably some ideas, thoughts, anything… something positive, how I can solve the problems that I’ve been dealing with, because I’ve been trying for a long time and I’ve been deciding for a long time if I’m going to go somewhere and so I was like, I want to turn the page in my life and just start again.”
3. T: “Hmmm, if we can turn the page together, what will be there on another page? By what in your life, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, will you know that we have already turned the page together and that you are already living the life you want?” (question for a common project).
4. C: “That I stop worrying and I stop thinking about what I’m thinking about, and it keeps coming back in my thoughts, just everything, and I just don’t want to think about it anymore, that I just don’t want to deal with it anymore, that I have a lot of things from my past that keep coming into my present life and I can’t seem to get away from it. And when I get rid of it, then there will be only my present and future life.”
5. T: “If you want to get rid of those things and pay more attention to things in the present then what’s next, what will that look like?” (question for a common project,focus on positive formulations).
6. C: “I think it’ll be a relief for me… and also for my boyfriend that I won’t be going to him all the time with the same thing because sometimes I experience something like anxiety attacks, so even if something good just happens and something works out, I’m happy about it, but it lasts for a little while and I’m soon back in a bad mood again and everything’s just wrong and keeps repeating like that.”
7. T: (shift to a vision of preferred future) “You mentioned before that the nursery often feels a bit magical… maybe, there is a certain charm about this nursery school that works not only for the children, of course, but for the adults as well. And now that we’re here together in this magical environment, it may be that we can turn the page together and there’s that relief…”.
8. C: (interrupts) “I would love that.”
9. T: “If, because of the magic that happens here, you suddenly started to live that other life, the life that you want, that you kind of started to describe, what would that look like? How will you know that the magic that is working here is starting to work for you?”
10. C: “That I’m not going to look for problems in everything… Now I just see a problem behind everything, somebody says something to me and I’m just going to say now I’ve said something wrong and she’s going to think something like that about me, I’m just, as my friend puts it, making up problems where there aren’t any and I can become obsessed with it and worry about it and…”.
11. T: (interrupts) “And… when you leave this magic nursery and the magic is already working for you, what will that look like?”
12. C: “What will it look like? I’ll leave smiling, I guess.”
13. T: “Oh… (nods) and you were saying a moment ago that you have such experience of being able to make up problems, how are you going to approach these situations when the magic from this nursery starts to work?”
14. C: “Probably with a different perspective, I won’t take everything so seriously.”
15. T: “If you have that different perspective… can you describe a specific example so that I can get an idea of how it looks like…?” (followed by detailed descriptions including interactions with other people).

The case example illustrates the seamless transition between common project discussion and conversation about the preferred future vision. The client’s shifts between problem descriptions and talks about preferred futures were also evident. Focusing solely on the common project might lead the client and therapist to become stuck in their conversation. However, transitioning to the vision of the preferred future opened up more possibilities and assisted the client in identifying a direction for the therapy.

The transition from a vision of the preferred future to the goal or goals is quite commonplace (refer to line 3, column 3 in Table 3). The miracle question was initially intended for goal formulation. In this context, goals are extracted from a detailed description of the preferred future vision and further refined according to certain criteria (De Jong & Berg 2008; de Shazer 1988; Furman & Ahola 2007). The next example illustrates a less common transition from a common project to a skill (see line 2, column 4 in Table 3).

Case Example 8: Learning to Listen

This excerpt is a direct continuation of the consultation in Case Example 1. The numbering of the utterances also continues.

(7) T: “I’m wondering, is this about something that you could learn yourself, some new skill that would help, that would make you argue less at home? Or is it that others should stop arguing and stop shouting at each other and disturbing you while you’re playing quietly on the computer?”

(8) C: “I think we all could learn, me and Mom.”

(9) T: “Hmm, let’s start with you for now… O.K.? What do you need to learn so you both can argue less at home? What would it be? I’m going to ask your mom about that in a minute too, but for now, I’m starting with you…”.

(10) C: “I don’t know.”

(11) T: “When you look at the situations like that, the way things are between you two (turns to mom) maybe even you can think of something if you have an idea, something that could help, some skill, something that he could learn to make it more peaceful at home…”.

(12) Mother: “He probably needs to learn how to communicate…”.

(13) C: (at the same time as Mother) “…to listen.”

(14) T: (turning to C) “Listen?”

(15) C: “Well, I’d like to listen more.”

(16) T: “What do you mean? (pause) To hear what someone says or to do what someone tells you, or…?”

(17) C: “To do and sometimes also to hear.” (laughs).

This case example illustrates that the formulation of a learning skill can be a creative, surprising, and sometimes humorous process, even if the situation is challenging for the clients. In this instance, an eleven-year-old client’s skill proposal (13) was selected and developed. The mother’s suggestion (learning to communicate – see 12) was deferred for later because it turned out that she also viewed “listening skills” as acceptable.

The next case example (9) further illustrates the playful nature of working with a preferred future. It demonstrates an even less common transition from skill to a vision of the preferred future (line 5, column 2 in Table 2). This excerpt follows immediately after Case Example 8, with the numeration of utterances continuing seamlessly:

Case Example 9: The Superpower Potion

(18) T: “You talked about wanting to learn to listen… that is, to hear something and to do it… I have to say that this is probably the first time that an 11-year-old has wanted to learn just that… (C is laughing) can you be more specific about the changes it would bring to you and others if you learned to listen?”

(19) C: “Well, it would be more peaceful at home.”

(20) T: “Hmm… more peaceful at home… okay (thinks for a moment) I have an idea, I know you like computer games and in some games, the hero drinks a potion or uses a spell and gains a superpower, do you know of any such thing?”

(21) C: “Yeah, for example in Minecraft you can drink a potion and then you’re invisible, that’s cool…”.

(22) T: “Oh, okay… suppose you also drank some magic potion here before you get home… a potion that would cause you to have a new superpower: listening. You and Mom would go home… what would tell you for sure that the potion was working perfectly?”

(23) C: “I don’t know… maybe if I played on the computer and my mom asked me to do something…”.

(24) T: “What would that look like specifically? Could we replay it here and now?”

(25) C: “Yes…” (Mother nods).

The therapist then started creating a “scene” with the computer, where C played his favorite game and his mother asked him to do some work. We refined and replayed the scene several times, with much laughter and an increasingly detailed view of the skill. This playful method helped to concretize the skill for both the child and his mother and initiated the practice of the skill. The clients were then able to continue practicing the skill at home – in role plays as well as in real challenging settings.

Conclusion

In this article, various methods for engaging with preferred futures in SFBT have been introduced. Concurrently, several assorted strategies to transition from problem descriptions to depictions of the preferred futures have been provided. Therapists and counselors have a reasonably broad range of options to initiate compelling conversations about what clients seek to change, even if they are “drowned” in problem-saturated narratives. Diverse approaches to handling the preferred future can also enrich, elaborate, and intensify each other. The potential for transitioning between different forms of preferred future descriptions creates a sort of “map” for therapists, which can assist them in their work.

It should be clear from the explanations of different methods of envisioning preferred futures, particularly the practical examples, that this process is not merely about posing predetermined questions to clients. Rather, it is a complex endeavor that entails collaborating with clients to facilitate a constructive conversation, enabling them to express their significant life goals. This involves mutual understanding, collaboration, and the creation of meanings through conversation (Cotton 2010; Strong 2009).

One basic tenet of SFBT states, “the meaning of a question can only be understood from the answer it elicits” (Miller & de Shazer 1998, p.9). This statement highlights the relational or systemic aspects of solution-focused psychotherapy (de Shazer et al. 2007; Lipchik 2002). It aligns with ideas of “cooperation” (de Shazer 1991) and the “focus” of solution-focused therapy in its authentic sense (Reiter & Chenail 2016). The highly interactive, relational, collaborative, and creative facets of this approach are central to the concept of solution-focused therapy (de Shazer 1991; Lipchik 2002).

Simultaneously, it is important to note that this conversation process, designed in such a manner, is inherently non-linear, as it involves various levels of circularity (recursion), swings in different directions, reappears in diverse forms, includes elements of chaos, and often produces new and unexpected outcomes (de Shazer 1991; Keeney & Keeney 2012). These recursive elements can also be observed in individual case examples from practice. Consequently, the need for a broad level of conversational adaptability and a vast repertoire of possible ways of facilitate preferred future conversations are vital for therapists.

Future studies specializing in therapy’s application of preferred futures should consider the subtle intricacies of transitioning the conversation from complaints to various forms of preferred future descriptions and their various forms of interrelation. It may be particularly insightful to investigate differing client reactions to queries regarding envisaged futures, as well as therapists’ reactions to potentially challenging responses. Despite solution-focused therapists having an imperative to accept any client response as a unique offer of collaboration and finding ways to employ it in the context of change (de Shazer 1991), implementation can be unclear in some scenarios. Examining consultations from highly accomplished therapists through discursive analyses might provide intriguing insights. Another significant area needing further investigation is the integration of preferred future-centric dialogues with other crucial conversational architectures, such as exceptions, scales, resources, etc.