Structures of Problem and Solution Formation in Systemic Therapy

Introduction

Systemic therapy is a psychotherapy approach that views the individual as part of a broader system of relationships, focusing on psychological problems as reflections of interactions and patterns within the system (such as a family or group). This perspective examines how problems emerge and are addressed within the system, with the goal of understanding its fundamental principles and discovering practical applications through examples and tools that therapists use.

Fundamental Principles and Conceptual Framework of the Systemic Approach

Systemic therapy rests on a set of core principles that differentiate the therapist’s outlook from an individual-centered view. These principles form the conceptual framework within which both the genesis of problems and the achievement of solutions are understood. Some of these fundamental principles are as follows:

• Holistic View of the System: According to General Systems Theory, every system (e.g. a family) is more than the sum of its parts. The behavior of each member both influences and is influenced by the others, creating a network of relationships. Thus, a problem in one member is considered a symptom of the system and not an exclusive property of the individual. The whole (the family system) shapes the functioning of its parts and vice versa.
• Circular Causality: Instead of traditional linear causality (A causes B), the systemic approach adopts the notion of circular causality. That is, causes and effects feed into each other in a cycle of interactions. For example, in a couple’s relationship, one partner’s distancing may increase the pressure from the other, which in turn further intensifies the distancing – creating a vicious cycle. Thus, the question shifts from “who is to blame” to “how is the cycle of the problem maintained?”.
• Feedback and Homeostasis: In human systems there are mechanisms of negative feedback that maintain stability (homeostasis) and mechanisms of positive feedback that lead to change or escalation. Families tend to maintain equilibrium: when one member deviates, the others react to restore homeostasis. A symptom can function as a stabilizing factor – for instance, a child with problematic behavior may unwittingly stabilize the family’s unity by diverting the parents’ attention away from their conflicts. Understanding this dynamic is central to systemic theory.
• Context and Environment: Behavior and problems acquire meaning only within the contextual frame in which they appear. The systemic perspective emphasizes how the social, cultural, and family context shapes experience. For example, the expression of emotions or the handling of conflicts is governed by family rules and roles. The conceptual framework of systemic therapy includes understanding a system’s roles, boundaries, and rules, as well as the unspoken “contracts” that govern relationships.
• Communication and Family Rules: Systemic therapists study the patterns of communication within the family. According to communication theory (Watzlawick et al.), every communicative message has a content (what is said) and a relationship dimension (how the message reflects the relationship between the participants). Dysfunctional communication patterns – such as double binds (conflicting messages that leave a person trapped with no correct way to respond) – contribute to the creation of problems. Family rules, though often implicit, determine what is permitted to be said or done. A problem may be maintained by rigid rules or roles (e.g. “the father must never show weakness” or “the child is always to blame”).
• First-Order and Second-Order Cybernetics: In the evolution of systemic theory, a distinction emerged between first-order cybernetics and second-order cybernetics. First-order cybernetics assumes that the observer (therapist) can remain outside the system and describe it objectively. Second-order cybernetics recognizes that the therapist is always part of the observed system – the therapist’s own perceptions and interventions influence the system. This led to a more relational, constructivist view: reality and the “problem” are seen as partly social and linguistic constructions, co-created through the dialogue between therapist and clients.

Building on the above principles, the systemic approach developed various models of therapy over the years. All share the systemic perspective, but they differ in techniques and in the emphasis they give to certain aspects:

• Structural Family Therapy (Salvador Minuchin): Focuses on the family’s structure – the subsystems (parental, sibling, etc.), the boundaries between them (clear, diffuse, or rigid), and the hierarchical roles. A problem is often seen as a result of a dysfunctional family structure (for example, a child exhibits a symptom when generational boundaries are blurred and the child becomes “parentified”). The intervention aims to restructure the relationships and boundaries so that the family attains a more functional organization.
• Strategic/Communication Therapy (Jay Haley, Cloe Madanes, MRI school): Emphasizes interaction patterns and the “strategies” the family uses to solve the problem, which often become part of the problem. For example, parents who persistently pressure a child to behave “normally” may inadvertently intensify the symptom. The goal is to break the vicious cycle of repetitive, ineffective solutions through creative interventions, including paradoxical ones.
• Milan Systemic Approach (Mara Selvini Palazzoli et al.): Developed in Italy, combining cybernetics with game theory and later constructivist ideas. It holds that problems are often maintained by family “myths” and rigid alliances. This approach introduced concepts such as the hypothesis (formulating a hypothesis about the function of the problem within the system), circular questioning (a specialized way of posing questions to members to reveal the circularity of their perceptions), and positive connotation (reframing each behavior as logical and positive within the system’s context). The Milan team also introduced the therapist’s stance of “neutrality” – not siding with anyone and not judging – so that alternative perspectives can emerge.
• Postmodern and Constructivist Approaches: From the 1980s onward, systemic therapy was influenced by postmodern currents. This led to models like Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg) and Narrative Therapy (Michael White, David Epston). A common feature of these approaches is that they are less interested in how the problem arose and more in how solutions or new life narratives can be created. Reality is viewed as a social construction through language; therefore, changing how we talk about the problem changes our experience of it. The solution, according to these approaches, already exists in embryonic form within the exceptions to the problem or in the alternative stories that have not yet emerged.

Summarizing, the theoretical framework of systemic therapy shifts the focus from “What is wrong with the individual?” to “Which interactions and meanings create and maintain the problem?” and finally to “How can we alter those interactions so that a solution emerges?”. With this background, we will now examine more specifically the structures underlying the formation of problems and solutions in systemic therapy.

Structures of Problem Formation in Systemic Therapy

In the systemic approach, a problem is not viewed as merely an unwanted symptom that must be eliminated, but rather as the result of specific structures and processes within the system. Therapists examine how a problem takes shape and what maintains it in terms of relationships and communication. The following are key dimensions of problem formation:

The Symptom as Part of the Whole

Every symptom or problematic behavior is considered an element of the system’s overall dynamics. This means that instead of asking “What problem does the individual have?”, we ask “What role does the symptom play in the functioning of the system?”. For example, a child with anxious outbursts may serve the unconscious function of keeping the parents united (since they jointly focus on the child instead of fighting each other). The problem, therefore, has a systemic function: it is part of a sequence of actions and reactions that—however dysfunctional it may appear—maintains a balance. This perspective helps the therapist avoid stigmatizing the “identified patient” (the person who appears to be the one with the problem), and instead see how everyone is contributing to the pattern.

Interaction Patterns that Maintain the Problem

A problem is identified within repetitive interaction patterns. Systemic therapy seeks out this vicious cycle: which sequences of behaviors are continuously repeating and “locking” the system in a problematic state. Often, this pattern can be described as a chain: action A by person X -> reaction B by person Y -> reaction C by person X -> … and so on, which ultimately ends up reinforcing action A again.

For example, a husband feels that his wife criticizes him, so he withdraws emotionally; she, feeling his withdrawal, criticizes him even more for his indifference; this leads him to distance himself further. The result is a self-perpetuating pattern of misunderstanding and distance. The initial “problem” (e.g. a communication discord) is now structured into a cycle where both are contributing, without a clear beginning or end. The therapist maps out these patterns to make them visible to the participants.

Solution Attempts that Become Part of the Problem

A pioneering idea introduced by the MRI group (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch) is that attempts to solve a problem can maintain or even worsen it. When a family or individual repeatedly tries the same strategy to solve the problem without success, that strategy becomes part of the problem.

For example, the parents of a defiant teenager might try ever stricter punishments—but the increased strictness leads the teenager to more rebellion, which then drives the parents to impose even harsher measures. This endless attempt at solution on the same level (“more of the same”) is described as first-order change – an attempt to change the situation without altering the basic rules or context. The result is that the “solution” becomes part of the structure of the problem. In formulating the problem, therefore, we take into account not only what is going wrong, but also what people have already tried to do to fix it.

Systemic Assumptions and Beliefs

Families often develop collective beliefs that solidify their problems, such as the perception that someone is irredeemably unruly or that depression is inescapable, thereby creating dominant stories that govern their behavior. These narratives give meaning to the symptoms and, when everyone believes that nothing can help, that belief reinforces passivity and despair, allowing the problems to continue.

Family Structure and Balance of Power

From the perspective of structural therapy, the formulation of the problem is closely linked to the organization and hierarchy of the system. For example, if parents fail to work together as the leaders of the family, a child may exhibit problematic behavior, reflecting the lack of guidance. Or, if there is a conflictual alliance between one parent and a child against the other parent (triangulation), the child’s symptom may function as a means of expressing the marital conflict that is being avoided. Thus, hierarchical reversal (children in a parental role, parents rendered ineffective) and blurred boundaries between members are structures that give rise to problems. Clearly recognizing these structures is crucial to understanding “why the problem exists.”

Multigenerational Influences

Certain systemic perspectives (e.g. Bowen’s theory) point out that problems can be the result of intergenerational patterns. Emotional dysfunction may be carried from generation to generation through maladaptive patterns such as low differentiation of self (difficulty maintaining autonomy in close relationships) or family roles that are inherited (for example, in each generation one member is victimized or one becomes the “hero” who saves the others). Although the emphasis on the multigenerational dimension varies by model, these influences can be seen as problem structures that go beyond the present system and link the past with the present. Thus, a problem today may be the current expression of a chain of events and relationships from the past.

In sum, formulating a problem in systemic therapy is a process of analyzing the web of interactions, communications, and meanings that hold the problem in place. The therapist acts like a “researcher of the system,” co-constructing with the family a picture of how all the pieces of the puzzle (the individuals, their interrelations, the environment, previous attempts at resolution) combine to create the current difficulty. This picture not only explains why the problem exists, but also hints at possible paths for changing it.

Structures of Solution Formation and Therapeutic Change

In contrast to the traditional notion that solving a problem requires identifying and eliminating its cause, systemic therapy proposes that the solution can be formulated independently of the initial cause. It is based on the belief that small changes in the system’s structure can lead to disproportionately large improvements. Therapists, instead of directly “fixing” the symptom, try to shift the system into new ways of functioning where the original problem becomes unnecessary. The key aspects of solution formation are as follows:

Second-Order Change

For a system to break out of the vicious cycle of a problem, often a second-order change is required – that is, a change in the very rules or the frame that governs the interactions. Here, therapy does not focus on doing “more or less of the same” (first-order change), but on doing something qualitatively different.

For example, a couple who constantly argue about household responsibilities could try exchanging roles for a day – an unexpected change that allows them to see the situation from a new vantage point, instead of each trying to convince the other with the same arguments. Second-order change entails a shift of context: the old rules cease to apply and a new organization emerges. From a systemic perspective, the solution to a chronic problem often demands such a transformation.

Reframing and Changing Meaning

A fundamental mechanism of solution formation is changing the meaning attributed to the problem. Through reframing, the therapist offers a new interpretation for a behavior or situation, which reduces resistance and opens the door to change. For example, a mother who sees her son as “irresponsible” because he forgets his schoolwork might, through reframing, begin to see him as an independent thinker who gets lost in his creative ideas.

With this new view, her reaction shifts from anger to curiosity, and the parent–child interaction is altered. Reframing essentially creates an alternative reality for the system: the same event acquires a different meaning and, consequently, allows for a different response. Often, the change of meaning by itself constitutes the solution, as the problem ceases to be experienced as a problem.

Focus on the Solution Instead of the Problem

Particularly in modern systemic approaches (solution-focused, narrative), attention is deliberately shifted away from analyzing the problem and toward building the solution. This means the therapist cultivates discussions about what life will be like without the problem or which existing moments are already close to that desired state. For example, a client may be asked: “Tell me about a time in the last week when you felt a little better – what was different then?”

Through such conversations, the exceptions to the problem (moments when the problem does not occur or is less intense) and the members’ resources (skills, supports) that might have been underestimated come to light. The solution is formulated by reinforcing these positive elements and extending them. This practice is based on the belief that one does not need to know the cause of a problem in order to solve it – it is enough to find what works and make it systematic.

Collaborative Co-construction of the Solution

In systemic therapy, the solution is not something imposed by the therapist, but something co-created together with the participants. The therapist, especially in its postmodern iteration, avoids the role of the “expert who knows” and adopts the role of a collaborator who facilitates the conversation. Change is achieved when the system itself discovers different ways of communicating and problem-solving. To make this happen, the therapist fosters a dialogue in which all voices are heard and new ideas can emerge.

The therapist’s neutrality (impartiality) and curiosity are key: by asking open-ended, circular questions, they help members see their relationships from different angles. Thus, the solution often emerges as an “aha” insight or realization within the family – a new meaning or a new agreement that changes the pattern. This process is self-organizing: the therapist provides the prompts, but the system itself finds its new equilibrium.

Small Changes, Big Impacts

Systemic therapists often adhere to the principle that a small change in one part of the system can bring about a large change in the whole. This is based on the concept of nonlinear effects and interdependence. Therefore, it’s not always necessary for everything to change or to completely resolve every aspect of the problem – it suffices that a critical shift occurs at some key point.

For example, if in a family with long-standing conflict the sessions lead even one member to change their stance (e.g. one parent starts to listen more and criticize less), this can in turn, like a chain reaction, improve the atmosphere and reduce conflict overall. Therapeutic change is seen as successful when a new cycle of interactions is created – a “virtuous cycle” replacing the old vicious cycle. The emphasis, then, is not on dramatic overhauls, but on targeted interventions that serve as catalysts for the system’s self-change.

The Therapist’s Role as a Change Agent

Even though the therapist does not “solve” the problem on behalf of the family, they have a crucial role: to create the context in which change becomes possible. This is achieved in various ways – from establishing a therapeutic alliance with all members, to reducing the anxiety surrounding the problem so that the family can experiment with something new. In more classical strategic approaches, the therapist acts as a director, giving directives or assigning experimental homework tasks (for example, instructing family members to behave in a specific way between sessions).

In more collaborative approaches, the therapist functions as a mirror that helps the family see itself differently, or as a facilitator of a creative dialogue. In every case, the therapist contributes structures toward the solution – whether it is a new routine, an experiment, or a new vocabulary for describing reality. Success is not credited to the therapist but to the system that has been mobilized.

In conclusion, the formation of solutions in systemic therapy involves restructuring the way the system operates: creating new experiences, new interpretations, and new interactions that replace the previous dysfunctional ones. A successful solution often becomes evident when the initial problem no longer holds the same meaning for the members and/or the behaviors that sustained it no longer occur in their old pattern.

Techniques and Tools of the Systemic Therapist in Practice

The theory of systemic therapy is implemented through a variety of techniques and tools that help bring about the aforementioned change. Therapists draw from a broad repertoire of interventions, depending on the model and the needs of each case. Below are some of the most characteristic techniques, along with a brief example or description of how they are used:

• Reframing: The therapist proposes an alternative interpretation for a behavior or event, giving it a positive or at least a different meaning. For example, a wife who complains that her husband is distant and doesn’t talk to her might hear from the therapist that perhaps he shows his love through actions rather than words. This new perspective can reduce the tension between them and open space for understanding. Reframing is a tool used in nearly all forms of systemic therapy to shift the members’ perception of the problem.
• Circular Questioning: This is a specialized form of questioning developed by the Milan team. The therapist asks one family member to comment on the relationship between two other members. For example: “Maria, how do you think your brother feels when your mother is arguing with your grandmother?” These questions compel members to see the circular interactions and to adopt the perspective of an observer of the system. At the same time, they reveal hidden alliances, perceptions, and emotions. Circular questioning is a powerful diagnostic and interventive tool – through it, the family itself begins to perceive the pattern in which it is trapped.
• Paradoxical Interventions: Used primarily by the strategic/communications school (e.g. Jay Haley and the MRI group), these involve deliberately contradictory or unexpected instructions given to the family. A classic paradoxical technique is the “symptom prescription”: the therapist asks people to deliberately perform the symptom. For example, for a child who severely stutters in stressful moments, the therapist might instruct him to stutter on purpose whenever he feels anxious. The goal is to upset the context – either the symptom will lose its function (since it ceases to be spontaneous) or the family will respond to it differently. Another paradoxical intervention is the “prediction of relapse”: telling, for instance, a couple who had a good week without fights that “it’s normal if you argue again soon,” which provokes them to disprove the prediction by staying calm (in other words, to solve the problem deliberately). These techniques take advantage of the notion that sometimes a direct “push” for change creates resistance, whereas an indirect, paradoxical approach bypasses defenses.
• Directives and Guided Tasks: In many cases, the systemic therapist gives specific homework assignments or instructions to the members, designed to disrupt the problem. For example, the therapist might ask the parents to devote 10 minutes every evening exclusively to their child, playing with them (if the symptom is thought to relate to lack of attention). Or the therapist might ask a couple who are growing apart to arrange a daily 15-minute uninterrupted conversation. These strategic interventions aim to create new experiences among the members, in contrast to the entrenched patterns. Sometimes the tasks may be unusual – e.g. asking the family to keep a journal of when the symptom occurs, or to perform a small ritual every time a minor disagreement is resolved – all intended to increase awareness and change routines.
• Role Playing and Dramatizations (Enactments): Especially in the structural approach, the therapist may bring the family’s pattern into the open during the session by asking members to reenact a specific scenario. For example: “Show me how a typical argument at home usually happens.” Through this dramatization (enactment), the therapist can observe the interactions live and intervene on the spot: for instance, by amplifying the voice of a quiet member, suggesting two people swap seats in the room, or pausing the scene to discuss what is occurring. Enactments give the family an opportunity to experience change within the session – for example, if a father for the first time sets boundaries with the child during an enactment and does so effectively, that experience can be carried into life outside therapy.
• Externalization of the Problem: Originating from narrative therapy, this technique radically changes the way members talk about the issue. The therapist encourages the family to talk about the problem as if it were an external entity, not an inherent trait of any one member. For example, instead of saying “our daughter is depressed,” the family says “the depression is tormenting our daughter.” Or instead of a teenager saying “I’m aggressive,” he says “the aggression takes over me sometimes.” In this way, the problem is depersonalized and individuals can ally together against the common problem. The therapist can take it a step further, asking clients to give the problem a name or form (e.g. calling depression “the Black Cloud”) and to tell stories about times when they beat it. Externalization often brings immediate relief, as it reduces blaming and stigma, while simultaneously mobilizing the family’s strengths to creatively confront the situation.
• Miracle Question and Seeking Exceptions: These are key techniques of solution-focused therapy that have been broadly incorporated into the systemic repertoire. The miracle question is formulated as follows: “Suppose that tonight, while you are asleep, a miracle happens and the problem that’s troubling you is solved. What would be the first thing you would notice the next morning that would tell you the miracle occurred?” This question shifts the client’s thinking away from the problem and toward the details of the solution. It helps them imagine specific changes that compose a desired reality. A related technique is seeking exceptions: “Are there times when the problem doesn’t happen or is less intense? What is different then?” By focusing on exceptions, clients recognize that the problem is not omnipresent and that already – even if unknowingly – they have found ways to mitigate it. These techniques boost the sense of self-efficacy and hope, as solutions emerge from the clients’ own experiences.
• Genogram: The genogram is a mapping tool for the family, a pictorial genealogical representation that includes information for at least three generations (relationships, significant events, emotional bonds, conflicts, etc.). While initially a diagnostic tool (helping pinpoint recurring patterns, such as a family history of depression or single-parent households), it often also functions therapeutically. The process of creating the genogram during the session engages the family in a reflection on its identity and inherited patterns. By identifying how a problem might be connected to the family’s past, members are encouraged to write a new ending to the story, free from the burden of previous generations.
• Systemic Ritual: On some occasions, therapists propose rituals – symbolic acts with a specific structure – as a means of change. This was particularly suggested by the Milan team. For example, in a family where a teenage daughter exhibits psychosomatic symptoms every time the parents argue, a ritual might be prescribed: every evening for one week, all family members spend 30 minutes discussing the day’s tensions openly, and then afterward the daughter writes on a paper how she felt hearing her parents speak calmly. At the end of the week, the paper will be burned ceremonially in front of everyone. Such interventions, strange as they may seem, provide new temporary rules to the system and allow it to function differently, while also strengthening everyone’s commitment to change.

The above techniques are only a sample of the tools at a systemic therapist’s disposal. In practice, therapists often combine techniques and adapt the intervention to the unique characteristics of the system in front of them. What is important is that each technique serves the general principle of systemic therapy: to disrupt dysfunctional patterns and to facilitate the emergence of new, healthier ways of interacting and understanding.

Examples of Application in Practice

To better understand how the above principles and techniques come alive in therapeutic practice, two brief examples follow. These examples illustrate how a systemic therapist can shape the understanding of a problem and guide the process toward a solution.

Example 1: The case of a “difficult” adolescent

A family seeks help for their 16-year-old son, Nikos, who has become defiant, doesn’t study, and is constantly in conflict with his father. In the initial discussion, the mother says: “The problem is our son; he doesn’t listen to anyone.” An individual-focused therapist might concentrate on Nikos and his motivations or thoughts.

The systemic therapist, however, immediately widens the lens: he meets with the entire family and observes their interactions. He finds that every time the father tries to set limits (e.g. insisting on school obligations), the mother intervenes protectively on Nikos’s behalf, with the result that the father grows angry and Nikos feels justified in ignoring his father. This triangular pattern (father versus son, with the mother as the child’s rescuer) is considered the structure of the problem.

The therapist shares his hypothesis with the family: “I see that you are all trying to help, but perhaps unintentionally you’re getting caught in a cycle where each of you undermines the other. Nikos, maybe in order to gain autonomy, provokes his father; the mother, out of love, defends Nikos, which makes the father feel sidelined and become more strict, which in turn pushes Nikos into further defiance.” This redefinition helps the family see that everyone is participating in the problem, not just the teenager.

Moving toward a solution, the therapist decides to implement a structural intervention: in a next session he asks the mother to remain quietly observing while the father and Nikos discuss a topic of disagreement. He guides them to listen to each other without interruption. At first the tension escalates, but the mother restrains herself (a new experience for everyone).

The therapist helps the father formulate his requests without insults and encourages Nikos to express how he feels when he is constantly being scolded. For the first time, the father hears that Nikos feels “not good enough” in his eyes. This moment represents a change in meaning: the problem is no longer “the son is lazy,” but “the son feels that he isn’t trusted.” The father, moved, promises to try to show more trust.

As homework, the therapist assigns them the task of father and son spending two hours each week in a joint activity of their choice, without the mother present (e.g. playing a sport, going to the movies). The mother is given the task of devoting that time to something personal, resisting the temptation to worry about Nikos. In subsequent sessions, the family reports clear improvement: Nikos and his father are talking more, and tensions have decreased. In fact, Nikos expressed on his own an interest in improving his grades, something that came about when he felt he was being treated more maturely.

In this example, we see how the systemic approach reframed the problem from individual to relational, and how it combined techniques (pattern observation, an enactment in the session, shifting role boundaries, homework tasks) to shape a solution. The result was a change in the structure of the family’s interaction: the father reestablished his parental role in a positive way, the mother was freed from her mediating role, and Nikos was able to behave more responsibly once he was no longer being treated as “little.”

Example 2: A couple at a communication impasse

A married couple, Anna and Giorgos, come to therapy due to constant arguments and emotional distance. Both say they love each other, but feel they have gotten stuck in a pattern where “no one really listens to the other.” The therapist asks them to describe a typical fight. Anna says that when she tries to express what bothers her, Giorgos shuts down, turns on the TV or changes the subject – this infuriates her and she starts yelling that he’s ignoring her.

Giorgos, for his part, says he avoids the discussion because Anna’s tone scares him, and when she gets more angry, the only thing he can do is to stay silent. Here the therapist identifies a classic pursuer–withdrawer pattern: the more one (Anna) chases for engagement in an angry way, the more the other (Giorgos) retreats, which again heightens her intensity.

Instead of analyzing who “starts it” first, the therapist maps their circular dance. In fact, he draws it on paper in front of them, with arrows to show the circular sequence. This helps them understand that the problem is the pattern, not either of them as individuals. In one session, the technique of externalization is used: the therapist suggests giving a name to this pattern that grips them.

After some discussion, the couple agree to call it “the wall.” They say: “When ‘the wall’ comes up between us, I (Anna) start shouting and you (Giorgos) raise the ‘wall’ higher with your silence.” This metaphor turns their conflict into something outside of them both, which they can observe and fight against together.

Next, the therapist poses a miracle question: “If you woke up tomorrow and the ‘wall’ had disappeared, what would be different?” Anna says that they would wake up in each other’s arms and Giorgos would look into her eyes, smiling. Giorgos says he would go to work feeling light, without a knot in his stomach, and he would be eager to come home to discuss the day’s events. These descriptions give them a concrete vision of the solution.

The therapist then asks: “Are there times when, even though the ‘wall’ is usually there, you’ve managed to knock it down, even for a little while?” The couple recall that last year, on a trip, they felt very close and communicated without difficulty. They also acknowledge that recently, when they faced a crisis with their sick cat, they cooperated effectively and without fighting.

The therapist assigns a symbolic task: to jointly draw a literal “wall” on paper and then find ways to decorate it or creatively demolish it. They do this at home and find it enjoyable – they stick Post-it notes on it with ideas like “go for a walk instead of shouting” (for Anna) or “say what you feel instead of going silent” (for Giorgos).

In subsequent sessions they report that now, when an argument starts, one of them will say “look, the wall is coming up” and immediately both will chuckle a bit and try to approach things differently. They have also agreed on a safety signal: when Giorgos feels pressured, he raises his hand – this means “I need a break; I’m not rejecting you.” Anna learns to recognize this and give him a little space, which helps Giorgos not to shut down for hours.

In this couple’s case, the solution came through understanding the circular pattern (the diagram of their “dance”), externalization (naming the wall), recognizing exceptions, and collaboratively finding new approaches (agreeing on a timeout signal, engaging in a shared activity). The therapeutic change became evident when the couple managed to step outside their pattern (“the wall”) and regain the ability to show empathy toward each other. Thus, communication was restored and the problem lost its power.

Conclusion

Systemic therapy offers a multidimensional lens through which we can view human problems and their solutions. Instead of searching for a single linear cause or assigning blame exclusively to one person, it recognizes that problems are shaped by the relationships, patterns, and meanings that exist within a system. This approach teaches us that a symptom may be the system’s way of maintaining balance – however dysfunctional it might appear – and that change comes not by simply suppressing the symptom but by transforming the system itself.

The structures of problem formation in systemic therapy include the circularity of interactions, the communicational balances and imbalances, the roles and rules that keep a problem in place, as well as the very attempts at change that might have become part of the pathology. By understanding these structures, the therapist and the family gain a “roadmap” of the problem.

Meanwhile, the structures of solution formation show that change is not a mysterious miracle but a process of reassembling the same elements that constitute the problem. By changing the context, the meaning, or the sequences of actions, the system can move to a new state of equilibrium where the original problem has no reason to exist. In systemic therapy, the solution often emerges from within: clients discover new ways of relating, supported by the therapist’s targeted interventions which act as catalysts.

Furthermore, the practical dimension – through tools such as reframing, circular questions, paradoxical directives, externalization, family tasks and others – demonstrates how theory translates into specific experiences of change. These techniques are not an end in themselves but serve a strategic purpose: to interrupt the problem and allow the system to construct its own solution.

Ultimately, systemic therapy teaches us that understanding and change go hand in hand. By deeply understanding the “system of the problem,” members can redefine their relationships and beliefs, leading to change. Rather than erecting theoretical edifices or hunting for single-point causes, the systemic approach remains connected to action: by changing something here-and-now in the way people relate, we create the conditions for resolution.

In a world where problems are often addressed in a fragmented way, systemic therapy offers a holistic and optimistic perspective: even the most complex issues can be reformulated and resolved when we view the system as a whole in evolution. Solutions are not magic recipes, but emergent properties of a process in which people learn new ways to coexist, communicate, and understand each other. This journey from problem to solution – from vicious cycle to virtuous cycle – is the heart and essence of systemic therapy.

Bibliography

1. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
2. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Haley, J. (1978). Problem-Solving Therapy: New Strategies for Effective Family Therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1978). Paradox and Counterparadox: A New Model in the Therapy of the Family in Schizophrenic Transaction. New York: Jason Aronson.
5. de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to Solution in Brief Therapy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
6. White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
7. Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: Braziller.
8. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
9. Cecchin, G., Lane, G., & Ray, W. A. (1992). Irreverence: A Strategy for Therapists’ Survival. London: Karnac Books.
10. Nichols, M. P., & Davis, S. D. (2020). Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods (12th ed.). Boston: Pearson.