In the debate over counselor directiveness in goal-setting, which statement best captures the view of the field?

• A. All of the above statements are correct.
• B. If the client remains ambivalent about change, this is not a time to become directive.
• C. There is another camp that believes that goals and actions suggested by the counselor may increase resistance.
• D. Some believe that the depth of the relationship determines the appropriateness of suggesting goals.

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is how directive a counselor should be when helping a client set goals, and how this depends on readiness, potential pushback, and the quality of the therapeutic relationship. When a client shows ambivalence about change, many approaches advise leaning away from direct guidance and instead exploring the mixed feelings and eliciting the client’s own reasons for change. That aligns with the view that pushing for goals too soon can undermine motivation. At the same time, there’s a parallel strand in the field that cautions that offering goals and specific actions can raise resistance in some clients, suggesting a more collaborative or exploratory stance rather than a concrete directive. Another well-supported idea is that the strength of the alliance matters: with a deeper, more trusting relationship, a counselor may appropriately introduce goals and suggestions in a way that respects the client’s autonomy and readiness. Because each of these positions captures a legitimate consideration in practice, the best overall summary is that all of these are correct reflections of the debate in the field.