What Do Clients Want? Direction? No Direction?
In a recent article, one of my heroes of Pluralistic Counselling Mick Cooper explores a question that sits at the centre of client-centred practice: Should we ask clients what they want from therapy, and if so, what does that mean for how we work? This is not just an academic point which I discuss with students at my local Uni or in supervision sessions, but a philosophical one about the nature of human beings, autonomy, therapist influence, and how we co-construct therapeutic work.
Should therapists ask clients what they want from therapy?
Yes. Research shows many clients prefer therapy that combines empathy and relational depth with structure, goal-setting, and active therapist engagement. Asking about client preferences supports collaboration, improves engagement, and aligns with person-centred values of autonomy and shared decision-making. Preferences are best treated as starting points for dialogue rather than fixed treatment demands.
At its core, the person-centred approach grew from Carl Rogers’ profound respect for the client’s subjective experiencing and self-direction. Cooper reminds us that this respect is ethical and relational, rooted in equality and trust, rather than a blind faith that the client always knows “what is best for them.” The therapist’s role is not to be an expert in the client’s life, but to accompany the client in discerning their own directional pull towards growth. I’ve always loved that way of looking at our roles.
But here’s the twist: recent research data suggest that clients often do want more direction, structure and goal focus in therapy than many person-centred therapists assume. In surveys analysed by Cooper and his colleagues, a large majority of clients expressed preferences for therapists who take an active role in setting goals, helping with specific tasks, and offering guidance—sometimes in ways that look very similar to more directive modalities like CBT. This contrasts with traditional notions of non-directive, ‘let-it-emerge’ person-centred work. Full disclosure: I have, ever since I got involved in this field, held a more directive approach to counselling. It must be my lawyer-consultant brain that just seems to operate that way!
Keep in mind: this isn’t a binary option between warmth and task-orientation. Empathy, acceptance, and relational depth remain essential foundations of change for clients. But if clients also indicate they want structure and active engagement from you, ignoring that risks missing crucial aspects of their experience and potentially undermining engagement and outcomes.
What might drive this preference for more directive work? Some suggest cultural influences—where problem-solving, goal-setting, outcomes, and measurable progress are the norms in many aspects of life. Other clients articulate clear reasons: goals can provide focus; structure can offer clarity; and gentle direction can help make sense of what feels overwhelming. Cooper is careful not to reduce these preferences to pathology or socialisation but to take them seriously as meaningful expressions of what clients want from the therapeutic journey.
So What Does This Mean for Person-centred Practice?
First, understanding preferences doesn’t mean abandoning core values like non-judgemental acceptance or relational depth. It does mean recognising that therapist non-directive posture and client relational needs are not incompatible with structured, goal-oriented work. Clients can want both deep, empathic connection and an active relational partner who helps them move toward specific outcomes.
Second, this research invites us to see preferences not as static traits but as starting points for dialogue. Asking about preferences—explicitly and respectfully—acknowledges clients as co-creators of the therapeutic process (the foundation underneath the Pluralistic Approach). It opens space for shared decision-making, rather than assuming that a therapist’s intuition or training alone should dictate the shape of therapy.
Third, this does not require therapists to become experts in all modalities. Nor does it mean a sharp turn to directive therapy. I would say it invites curiosity and responsiveness. Skills like negotiating goals, exploring what clients mean by structure or “help”, and attending to how clients balance relational depth with direction are all part of nuanced, adaptive practice that can still sit well within a humanistic orientation.
Finally, Cooper’s reflections remind us that person-centred practice has always been about more than a method—it’s an ethic rooted in respect, equality, and shared exploration. Asking clients what they want, then using that as a compass for collaborative work, is in line with that ethic. It honours clients’ agency and recognises that true person-centred work is dynamic, responsive, and informed by evidence as well as empathy.
