Defining Good Goals

“Having lost sight of our goals, we redouble our efforts” (Mark Twain). This saying describes what happens in everyday life all the time – whether in politics, in corporate life, in social and educational situations, or in our own daily routines.

Setting goals can help us to organize our activities and separate the necessary from the irrelevant. However, Twain’s statement stands in contrast with constru-tivistic concepts: Heinz von Foerster (1988, quoted by von Schlippe & Schweit-zer, 2007, p. 210) warned against a purely goal-oriented therapy, which in his opinion would hamper the developmental possibilities of the family. Von Schlippe and Schweitzer (2007, p. 210) thus recommend setting only short-term goals,

“such as asking the question ‘What has to happen today that you can say at the end of the session: That was a good session.’” Of course, it is equally important to “inquire about the visions of possible solutions in systems needing counseling,”

although such ideas should be viewed only as temporarily valid statements about present developmental perspectives.

Background Text: Goal-Oriented Approaches – or: Does Perturbation Stimulate Open Processes?

This question touches on both aspects of epistemology and humanity. Matu-rana’s concept of “perturbation” is usually interpreted as meaning “to de-stroy.” Ludewig (1999, pp. 78 ff.) describes the therapeutic intervention as a

“significant destruction of family coherence within a therapeutic system.”

The term refers to the fact that both families and systems are not control-lable, and that interventions that intend to induce change should concentrate on destroying old and crusty thought and behavioral patterns – trusting that the system will react to this destruction by forming other, perhaps even more functional forms of organization. This idea also includes the belief that com-plex social systems are effectively unsteerable: No one can say in advance which effect an intervention will ultimately have. But any intervention, this we do know, will upset the existing equilibrium of the system (homeostasis) so much that the system has to change in order to return to (perhaps another) equilibrium. In this sense, of course, long discussions about goals are coun-terproductive as they hinder the open-ended developmental process. Discuss-ing goals may be used, however, to import new ideas into the system.

In our own experience, these concepts may be hard to swallow in struc-turally weak systems from marginal social groups, in community projects, in groups of violence-prone adolescents, with mistreated or abused persons. In-stead, we start with three premises:

– In many contexts we are forced to set goals because of institutional man-dates or our own value orientation.

– The ability to embark in truly new directions by first tearing down the old is not equally pronounced in all clients. Some systems that have a consid-erable supply thereof can proceed in this way. Others that have already been confronted with much destruction, aberrations and confusion in the past may benefit more if we supply support, orientation and concrete di-rections. If change means introducing something new into a system, then sometimes a firm structure is what is new to families with structural weak-nesses.

– Even if we try to remain value-neutral and expectation-neutral, implicitly we often turn to our own value system, which does have certain goals. Our debate about hypnotherapeutic techniques clearly showed that we always influence others in our communication with them. Especially when we are attempting to approach things nondirectively, without firm goals, do these influences become all the more subterranean, expressed only through sub-tle, nonverbal interventions. This phenomenon is another reason to always shift to working with goals on a completely conscious and transparent lev-el. Analogous to Watzlawick’s communication axiom one could say: “One cannot not manipulate as long as one is communicating.”

Of course, on the other hand, we do recognize that systems don’t like to be dictated to; they don’t like to be told to go some straight path, but rather tend to decide on their own what to do with the interventions offered by the helper.

Perhaps the two poles – “Goals are useful” and “Systems cannot be in-structed” – can be dialectically conjoined:

– Depending on the system, we vary the degree to which we work with goals that provide orientation. We assume that they will be continually reviewed, and we are open to all corrections, changes or substitutions – similar to our description on generating hypotheses.

– We proceed in a narrow or wide corridor of goals: The paths to a particular goal can be very different, and we do not presume to know in advance what will turn out to be best path for the respective clients, but rather strive to find that out by working with them.

Working with goals has a number of other useful effects:

– Goals focus behavior on a reference point.

– Dealing with goals distracts the clients from their problems. Thinking about the future activates their resources. “Thinking,” Sigmund Freud said, “is test-run action.”

– Good goals support and appeal to one’s motivation to put an effort into changing things in the foreseen direction.

– Goals serve as a sort of lighthouse when the going gets rough; they light the way and encourage one to perseverance: “It’s worth it and you can make it!”

– Pursuing goals helps to determine exactly what clients want, what’s impor-tant to them, what they wish for and what in turn is not so imporimpor-tant.

Carefully sifting through priorities also helps to avoid excessive demand on their own resources.

– Goals are good for the self-esteem of both the clients and practitioners:

Their own behavior is put to the test. Although this may sometimes also cause anxiety, everyone rejoices at success and can celebrate it.

The latter point is something we noticed particularly with our American col-leagues. They possess a very distinctive and high level of professional confi-dence, which by far tops that of their European colleagues. The latter tend to philosophize more about how human development is an open process and very, very difficult, and how impossible it is to describe results – let alone to promise or contract for success. American counselors, however, lecture open-ly about the newest “Don’t-Worry-Be-Happy Program” with 17 steps or the

“Five Guiding Principles” or the “Six Outcomes” of this method or that meth-od. To us Europeans this sometimes seems a bit superficial – but, if we are honest, it also leaves us more than a little envious of their clear and self-as-sured attitude. The two standpoints seem to have converged somewhat by

4.4.1 Criteria for Formulating Goals

Many existing measures, however, aren’t all too useful for determining clear goals.

Vague declarations of intent are unsuitable and cannot truly provide a plan of action (see Berg & Kelly, 2000, pp. 270 ff.). There is always room for “improving parenting skills” – no matter how hard one tries. Just as “better communication in the team” remains a noble and desirable goal even after years of supervision.

The prerequisite for knowing when one has actually arrived at one’s goal is to formulate a precise description of what things will look like once one has indeed arrived. Only then do helpers and clients have sufficient clues to recognize their success – and appreciate it.

Seiwert (2000), in his many publications on the topic of time- and self-man-agement, pointed again and again to the importance of clear goals. He speaks of

“smart goals” and summarizes in the acronym SMART his five criteria for good goals:

– Specific, – Measurable, – Action-oriented, – Realistic, – Time-limited.

Walter and Peller (1992) add to this definition of goals two further aspects: use processual language (i.e., more verbs and less nouns) and use the language of the clients.

now, which is surely owed in part to being courageous enough to talk about goals.

The contradiction discussed here between the two meaningful perspectives

“Intervention as open-ended disturbance” and “Intervention to reach goals”

cannot be completely resolved. Both are reasonable approaches, and we can only decide which to apply depending on the situation: Which offers the greatest advantage in the respective situation? Yet both positions are and remain constructions, not truths. Theories should be followed only for as long as they provide good results.

It is helpful to keep the principle mentioned above in mind: Every question is already an intervention. Working with goals, therefore, is not merely the preparation of interventions, but rather a source of new impulses for change.

Attractive images appear before the inner eye, internal search processes are activated, issues are resolved and sorted out, the relationship between prac-titioner and client is consolidated, questions signal interest and commitment.

This alone suffices to kick things off and make further work easier.

Specific goals

It is helpful to describe the situation as though one had, in fact, already reached the goal (no conjunctive moods here: should, could, would). Unspecific goals in some distant future feel tentative and nonbinding and lack the pull to get people excited. They also fail to show concretely how the goals can be reached.

Case example: “I will revise my daily schedule so that I have the time to eat in peace and quiet. I will make a meal plan every Sunday along with a matching grocery list. I will be mindful of eating more fruit and vegetables. At least one meal a day should be a salad or vegetable dish. Every day I will do 30 minutes of physical exercise.” Not: “I want to lose 20 pounds.”

Helpful questions on the path to the goal:

– “What, exactly, will that look like, once you’ve reached your goal? What will you be doing differently? I would like to understand what you mean. Can you put it into concrete terms?”

– “What can we do now to start you on the path to that goal?”

– “How, precisely, will you proceed with this?”

– “What could we do if . . .?”

Measurable goals

The more concrete the goals are defined, the better one can verify whether they have, in fact, been fulfilled.

Case example: “I would like us to listen to each other more calmly, withholding our com-ments for a while. I would like to learn to put my criticism into words earlier – instead of waiting and letting it eat away at me. I could check that by thinking about my day when I’m lying in bed in the evening, checking whether I have really told my husband everything I wanted to say or chosen a time to do that. I also want to talk more about things that I like.” . . . “How often?” . . . (pauses to think) “Well, you surely have the opportunity to compliment someone at least once a day, I would think.” Not: “My husband and I need to better understand each other.”

Questions about the level of standard are important. Many clients have unrea-sonably high expectations when they go to counseling – they think all their prob-lems will just disappear entirely. Scaled questions help to establish realistic ex-pectations and are a good way to come to better definitions of behaviors otherwise difficult to define.

Case example: A young man says that his goal is to find a partner (very good: a concrete, verifiable goal!). During counseling he tries to define his horizon for that goal. In the following we present a few of the questions and snippets of conversation during that session. Counselor:

“That then would be the 100% solution. How quickly do you think you could reach that goal?”

– “How much of that would we have to attain here in counseling for you to say, ‘OK, that’s good enough, I can do the rest by myself’?” – “So, 75% you say. And what, exactly, would you have reached at the 75% mark? What would be different from the way it is today?”

(Later on, after the client described the 75% mark as being able to approach girls in a more relaxed way.) “What does that mean to you, ‘relaxed’? Where in your body do you most notice what it means to be relaxed?” – “Any other places?” – “If I have understood you correctly, that

means that instead of having a knot in your stomach and frantically searching for some topic to talk about you would develop a sort of easiness about you and could talk about things that interest you. How would you recognize that this is the case? In which situations have you experienced this feeling?” The conversation is thus oriented toward a precise but realistic goal of (more or less) easygoing conversations with young women.

Action-oriented, positive goals

Formulating goals is meant to be a motivation for action. One describes exactly what one wants to instead of merely demanding that the problematic behavior end. This results in an internal image of the desired final state, which, in turn, can help to jump-start the intended change.

Case example: “When someone gets on my nerves, I try to control my anger. I go away or take a timeout. I try to work it off by doing something strenuous, like hitting a punching bag. When I’m more or less back to normal I can say what was bothering me.”

Not: “I shouldn’t hit back any more.”

Goals that have been expressed should govern the client’s activities. The goal of an intervention is to expand the client’s self-responsible behavior. Thus, goals must be attainable only with the means available to the client. And they have to be formulated such that they expand the areas of responsibility and experiences of competence.

Case example: “I will take a more active role in school, even though the teacher prefers others.” Not: “Only if the teacher involves me more will I take part in the lessons.”

Helpful questions on the way to the goal:

– “What will you do instead?”

– “What can you do differently?”

– “How can others – and how can I, myself – recognize that my goal has been reached?”

– “How would you act (feel, think) if . . . (you were more self-assured, could con-trol your anger, were more attentive to your child, your depressive thoughts disappeared tomorrow, etc.)?”

Realistic goals

The idea of “optimal frustration” stems from the developmental theory of psycho-analysis. This term means that goals create movement (change) if they are, for one, far enough away to create a certain level of frustration, and a certain effort is necessary to overcome that frustration. Additionally, there needs to be a realis-tic chance of actually reaching the goal on one’s own if one tries hard enough.

Case example: “No one does that for me.” – “Mama won’t get the toy for me, so I’ll have to crawl over there myself.”

Time-limited goals

Determining a point in time by when the goal should be reached creates a certain pressure to act. Dealing with the question of how much time will be necessary to

reach the goal serves the additional purpose of reducing excessive expectations of success to a more realistic level.

Processual language

Behavior is best described not in terms of nouns (e.g., smoking) but more as a process – as a series of feelings, thoughts and actions (“I smoke when I am stressed and think I can’t afford any other type of relaxation”). “How”-questions facilitate the development of an entire behavioral sequence, from the moment of triggering to the reactions and consequences in one’s environment.

Case example: “I will first listen to what my child has to say before telling him what I think he should do.”

Helpful questions on the way to the goal:

– “How will you do that?”

– “How will you proceed?”

Using the language of the client

The goal must be meaningful to the client and emotionally close to home; like-wise, the way it is worded and its value content must fit the client’s frame of reference and life experiences. When formulating the goal, it has proved more effective to use the client’s choice of vocabulary instead of some abstract lingo.

Case example: “So, instead of smashing his face in when he looks at you stupidly, you think to yourself: ‘Hey, asshole, you can kiss my ass if you think I’ll get into trouble with the cops again because of you’ – and then you turn away and say to your bro’ ‘Come on, let’s get out of here!’ Will that work? How can we help you do just that?”

In this example, the male competition that leads the client to lash out has been redirected to a challenge: If I let myself be provoked, am I the dumb one? Can I stay cool and let the other “bounce” off me? The formulation takes up an impor-tant motif of the young man and attempts to use it to reach the desired goal.

4.4.2 Goals for Placing Children in Foster Homes

Placing children in foster homes involves a number of very specific challenges to everyone: Children are separated from their parents, which can be experienced by some as a relief, by most, however, as traumatic. The parents are confronted with their own failure – they are incapable of offering their children a proper upbringing, which is now a public matter. This results in many impossible, hidden and ambivalent mandates: “Can you please set our child straight?” combined with

“Please fail – then we won’t feel so bad about having failed ourselves since not even the pros can get our kid back on the right track.”

Michael Durrant (1993) wrote a book on this subject with the fitting title You Can Count on the Strengths. In it, he suggests defining inpatient treatments or place-ments as transition rituals and staging them as such. Transition rituals are all about providing the space for new behavior that can be practiced and tested with the

support of others. Durrant (p. 61) makes some suggestions about how to frame foster placements differently, and how to circumscribe the themes and goals:

– The theme must be clear to the family and make sense.

– The theme makes a different description of the situation possible, bestows a new meaning on things, thus countering the feeling of hopelessness and defeat.

– The theme signals to the family that their fate lies in their own hands, and that they can be transformed from victims to problem-solvers.

– The theme is goal-oriented and not problem-oriented.

– The theme offers parents and their relatives a way to partake in the process of change.

Case example: 12-year-old Sven is described by his single mother as violence-prone: He hits her, his siblings and his schoolmates at the slightest provocation. From the child’s anamnesis we know that his father, who lived with the family until the boy was about 6, as well as the mother’s later partners were all prone to violent acts. After being admitted to an inpatient ward, Sven talks about how his anger overcomes him – and that he doesn’t like himself in such moments. For him it is an exception to have “good days.” Sven listens carefully, is attentive and agrees to our framing of his aggressiveness: “You’re right to have

Case example: 12-year-old Sven is described by his single mother as violence-prone: He hits her, his siblings and his schoolmates at the slightest provocation. From the child’s anamnesis we know that his father, who lived with the family until the boy was about 6, as well as the mother’s later partners were all prone to violent acts. After being admitted to an inpatient ward, Sven talks about how his anger overcomes him – and that he doesn’t like himself in such moments. For him it is an exception to have “good days.” Sven listens carefully, is attentive and agrees to our framing of his aggressiveness: “You’re right to have