5-Phase Session Structure

Download PDF

A4 PDF · instant download · no login required

Why a phase structure?

A 60-minute session without an inner structure easily becomes a "collection of anecdotes on suspicion of therapy." Clients tell a lot; counselors nod a lot; in the end both wonder what actually happened. A phase structure protects against this effect — it forces the counselor to set transitions consciously, and it gives clients an implicit sense of security about "where we are right now."

Important: there is no single correct phase model. The five-phase heuristic used here is a pragmatic synthesis of:

Heidelberg model (Schlippe/Schweitzer) — welcome, concern, exploration, intervention, closing
Milan model (Selvini Palazzoli et al.) — pre-session, session, inter-session, intervention, post-session
Solution-focused session structure (de Shazer/Berg) — what was better, resources, scale, step, compliments

The Milan phase logic presupposes a co-therapy / a reflecting team — which is why it is translated here into a solo session. The original structures can be read up on in the literature (see sources).

Contents: a dedicated section per phase · variations for first, follow-up, and closing sessions · six typical difficulties · FAQ · printing note · practice pocket as a table card · sources.

A warning about phase loyalty: A phase need not be carried through if the concern does not support it. If an acute crisis reference comes up in phase 2, the session is from that point on crisis intervention — not reflection. Phase loyalty is a tool, not an obligation.

## Phase 1 — Arriving, framing, updating (approx. 5–10 min) **Goal.** The client arrives in the room, switches from everyday life into the counseling context, and the counselor gains a first impression of the current state. In follow-up sessions, the arc back to the last session is completed. **What happens concretely?** - Welcome. Seat, water, a short pause for arriving. - "How are you today?" — deliberately open, no symptom check. - In follow-up sessions: "What has happened since our last session?" — connecting to the homework or the last thought. - In case of an acutely distressed impression: do not enter the plan, but stay with the current distress. **Sample questions.** - "What is occupying you most today?" - "Where shall we start — with the thought we had last time, or with what happened this week?" - "On a scale from 1 to 10 — where do things stand today?" (especially in therapies with continuous symptom measurement) **Typical difficulties.** - The client immediately recounts thirty minutes of everyday life. → Interrupt politely but firmly: "I hear that a lot has happened. What do we really want to talk about today?" - The client "doesn't arrive" (scattered, absent). → Concrete grounding question: "How did you get here today? What were you doing right before?" - The counselor is not present themselves (letting the previous session linger). → Plan a 3-minute pause before the session; breathing exercise.

Adapt: In online sessions, extend phase 1 (5 instead of 3 minutes) — arriving in front of the screen takes longer. Clear up technical problems first.

**Concrete example.** A client comes to the third session. Enters with a tense face, a worn bag, slightly short of breath. The counselor says nothing, points to the chair, slides over the water. Only after 30 seconds: "Good that you're here. How did you get here today?" — The client exhales, begins with a sentence about the journey. That is phase 1 — it required almost no words, but it works. **Milan variant.** In settings with a reflecting team, the session begins with a short pre-session of the counselors (5 min), in which the first hypotheses from the previous session are updated. The client enters only afterwards. Solo counselors can simulate this through a deliberate 3-minute preparation — read the last note, refresh the hypothesis, do one's own breathing exercise.

## Phase 2 — Clarifying and focusing the concern (approx. 10–15 min) **Goal.** The general conversation becomes a workable topic for this session. The client prioritizes (sometimes with help), the counselor formulates a working hypothesis. **What happens concretely?** - The client describes the current topic in their own words. - The counselor asks clarifying and circular questions (Tomm: linear → circular → reflexive). - Contracting: "What would be a good outcome of this session for you?" - The counselor formulates a working hypothesis (internally, possibly also transparently). **Sample questions.** - Linear questions: "When was the last time it was like this?", "Who was involved?" - Circular questions: "If your mother were sitting here today — what would she say?", "Who in your family knows about it?" - Reflexive questions: "What would change if the problem disappeared?" - Solution-focused question: "Was there an exception — a situation in which the problem did NOT occur?" **Typical difficulties.** - The client stays in problem-trance mode, sees no exceptions, no movement. → Use a scaling question ("Today a 3, when was it already a 5?"). - Several topics are equally pressing. → Let the client choose: "Which topic is burning the most?" Explicitly "place the other topics on the table of the next session." - The counselor has a hypothesis and steers the conversation in its direction. → Self-check: "Am I still listening, or am I already in the plan?"

Adapt: With clients who have cognitive impairments or high emotional distress, shorten phase 2 considerably — do not clarify extensively, but stay with a single concrete situation.

**Concrete example — Tomm's four question types in application.** Concern: "My son and I argue constantly." - *Linear (gathering information):* "When was the last argument? What was it about?" - *Circular (making the relationship visible):* "If your wife were sitting here — how would she describe the argument?", "What would your son answer to the same question?" - *Strategic (prompting change):* "What if next time you reacted completely differently — what would your son do then?" - *Reflexive (expanding resources):* "Imagine the argument is a protective function — what might it be safeguarding?" The four types of question are deliberately mixed, not used in a fixed order. Counselors with little experience tend to stay with linear questions — that turns the session into a clarification of facts rather than reflection.

## Phase 3 — Genogram work and in-depth exploration (approx. 15–25 min) **Goal.** The topic is placed in the biographical-familial context. The genogram serves as a visual aid to make patterns visible — repetitions across generations, role attributions, relationship qualities. **What happens concretely?** - If not yet available: a first genogram sketch (3 generations). - If available: sit together in front of the genogram, locating the concern from phase 2 there. - Multigenerational questions: "Who in your family has a similar issue?", "How was that done in the previous generation?" - Examine and deepen relationship lines (close, conflictual, distant). - Locate life events (losses, births, relocations, crises) in time and check for connection to the current topic. **Sample questions.** - "If I asked your grandmother how she dealt with such a situation — what do you think she would say?" - "Who in your family has ever been in such a life situation? How did it turn out there?" - "When we look at the genogram — do you notice a pattern?" - "What unspoken rule is there in your family on the topic of XY?" **Typical difficulties.** - The client knows little about earlier generations. → Work hypothetically: "What do you suspect? What fits your picture?" - The genogram becomes a grief activation (losses, difficult family histories). → Take the tempo out, switch to phase 4 if necessary, continue with the genogram later. - The counselor gets lost in family details, and the current concern disappears. → Self-check: "What does this have to do with today's concern?"

Important: Genogram work can trigger strong emotional reactions. Grief, anger, shame. If that happens: do not push through. Validate, switch to phase 4, decide later whether genogram work will be continued.

**Concrete example — the genogram as a reflection tool.** A client with burnout, a single parent, "I can't go on." In the genogram it becomes apparent: the mother was likewise a single parent, the grandmother a widow. Three generations of women without a supportive partner, all in caregiver roles. The counselor points a finger at the pattern in the genogram: "Here — three generations. What does that mean for you?" — The client: the first reaction is often silence, then tears, then a new perspective: "I always thought I was failing. But I'm doing it the way it's done in our family." Such pattern reflections are the strength of the genogram in phase 3. They work not through knowledge, but through visibility.

## Phase 4 — Forming hypotheses, intervention, reframing (approx. 10–15 min) **Goal.** Out of the exploration, hypotheses arise — about the problem system, about the function of the symptom, about possible movements. From this follows an intervention: a reframing, a new view, a behavioral prompt, a paradoxical intervention, or a ritual suggestion. **What happens concretely?** - The counselor shares a tentative hypothesis (or two alternatives), introduced with "What strikes me …" or "One possibility would be …". - The client reacts — accepts, modifies, rejects. - If the hypothesis holds: make the intervention concrete. E.g. reframing ("Perhaps your withdrawing is not a symptom but an old protective strategy."), a small behavioral task, an observation assignment. - Solution-focused approach: work out the smallest next step ("What would be the smallest visible sign that things are moving forward?"). **Sample questions and phrasings.** - "If I may formulate a hypothesis, it would be this — how does that fit with what you feel?" - "What do you think your family would say if you behaved differently?" - "Imagine the problem is solved — who in your family would then be most surprised? Who least?" - "If you lie down tonight and tomorrow everything is a little different — what would you notice first?" **Typical difficulties.** - The counselor formulates the hypothesis as a diagnosis ("You have an attachment problem"). → Hypotheses are hypothetical and are formulated that way. - The client rejects every hypothesis. → Do not push it through — take the client seriously as the expert on themselves. If necessary: "Let's let the hypothesis sit a little longer — maybe it will fit better tomorrow, or not at all." - The intervention turns into an extended explanation with a "wagging finger." → One prompt, one image, one sentence — no more.

Adapt: With counselors working in a solution-focused way, design phase 4 as a "compliment phase": praise concretely and specifically what the client manages well despite all difficulties.

**Concrete example — reframing.** Client: "In the family I'm always the one who balances everything out. It's wearing me down." — Counselor (reframing): "What you're doing there is a very old task in families — that of the mediator. You've apparently done it so well that today you feel its price. Perhaps the question is not whether you give up this task, but how you can carry it out differently." — This is not "positive reinterpretation" in the cheap sense, but a different reading of the previous strategy. Only this acknowledgment of the strategy often makes movement possible. **Concrete example — paradoxical intervention.** A client who constantly puts themselves under pressure to do everything right. — Counselor: "I have a prompt that may seem odd to you. This week, try deliberately to do three things deliberately wrong. Send an email with a typo. Don't answer a question. See what happens." — Paradoxical interventions must be used with care and only with a resilient relationship, otherwise they come across as cynical.

## Phase 5 — Closing and between-session task (approx. 5–10 min) **Goal.** The session is condensed, the client takes away something concrete, the next appointment is arranged. The final minutes have a large share in the memorability of the session — they are not the "remainder pile" but a structural condensation. **What happens concretely?** - "What are you taking away today? What was the most important thing for you?" - The counselor summarizes briefly — only if the client does not do so on their own. - Between-session task / observation assignment (optional): concrete, small, feasible. - Arrange a follow-up appointment. If necessary, clarify the fee / organizational points. - Farewell — stand up, accompany to the door. **Examples of between-session tasks.** - Observation assignment: "By the next session, note down three times when the problem was NOT there. Don't write why — just write what you did." - Behavioral experiment: "Try for one week answering your mother's question with 'I'll think about it' instead of reacting immediately." - Symbol task: "This week, find an object that symbolizes your concern, and place it somewhere visible." - Geno research: "This week, talk with a person from your family about XY and ask what they know about it." **Typical difficulties.** - The client "runs out of the room" — no condensation possible. → Next time, start phase 5 earlier, set a time anchor (clock visible). - The between-session task is too large / too complex / does not fit the concern. → Better none than a bad one. Clients who don't do tasks are not won over for the next session by them. - The counselor comes in with their own summary — the client doesn't reach their own conclusion. → Tolerate silence. "What are you taking away?" is an effective question; the answer often needs 30 seconds of silence.

Milan variant: In settings with a reflecting team, the team's observations in phase 5 are formulated as a "letter to the family" — a separate discipline that is not elaborated here. See Boscolo et al.

**Concrete example of a successful between-session task.** A client has been working for three sessions on the topic "I never take time for myself." Previous tasks ("Take an hour a week") have not been carried out. In this session the counselor phrases it differently: "This week, just observe — when you manage to take even just five minutes for yourself. Don't write down an intention, but what actually happens." — This is an observation task rather than an action task. It cannot "fail," yet it activates self-perception. This is the often more effective form. **Phase 5 in the family setting.** When several people are present, phase 5 includes the question to each person: "What are you taking away today?" — and tolerating that the answers are different. A common task is often not possible or not sensible. Instead: one small observation task per person that touches on their own part in the system.

## Variations for different session types The five-phase model is flexible. Depending on the session type, the emphases shift. ### First interview - Phase 1 shorter (no point of connection), but joining longer. - Phase 2 here is above all contracting and setting clarification. - Phase 3 becomes the first genogram assessment (see the separate template "First Interview Guide"). - Phase 4 restrained — a hypothesis preview rather than a hypothesis condensation. - Phase 5 contains the counseling contract, the GDPR consent, and the first follow-up appointment. ### Follow-up session - Phase 1 with a reference back to the last session. - Phase 2 more narrowly focused, because the prior history is known. - Phase 3 with genogram deepening or new patterns. - Phase 4 the most strongly developed in terms of content. - Phase 5 with a concrete link to the next session. ### Closing session - Phase 1 as a deliberately set review. - Phase 2 as "Where do we stand now, where did we stand at the beginning?" - Phase 3 as an overall view at the genogram: What has changed, what remains? - Phase 4 with reflection: What helped, what didn't? - Phase 5 as a deliberate farewell, possibly with a "closing letter" or the handing over of a symbol. ### Crisis session - Phase 1 can fill the entire hour — arriving, safety, stabilization. - Phase 2 becomes a situation assessment: What happened, what is acute? - Phase 3 is omitted or postponed — genogram work is not helpful in an acute crisis. - Phase 4 as the negotiation of a short-term stabilization strategy. - Phase 5 with a concrete emergency plan and a follow-up arrangement. ### Couples session - Phase 1 with both partners — let both arrive, equal speaking time. - Phase 2 with the question: "What do you want to talk about today?" — contrasting both partners' answers. - Phase 3 with relationship dynamics in the genogram (both partners' families of origin, transference patterns). - Phase 4 aims at relational movement, not an individual hypothesis. - Phase 5 with a small joint observation task that brings the partners into conversation.

## Six typical difficulties in the session structure **1. The session "trickles away."** After 50 minutes the counselor is still in phase 2, without having reached the genogram or a hypothesis. — **Solution:** Actively mark phase transitions. "We've now spent 20 minutes clarifying the concern — let's look together at what we have so far." **2. The client brings a new acute problem to every session.** The counseling never reaches any depth. — **Solution:** Address it explicitly in phase 2. "I notice that we end up on a different topic every week. Shall we commit to one topic for the next 3 sessions?" **3. The counselor forgets the genogram work over time.** After 5 sessions, the initially drawn genogram has disappeared into the file. — **Solution:** Place the genogram visibly on the table at every session. Work with it for at least five minutes per session. **4. Phase 4 turns into a lecture.** The counselor "explains" the system to the client. — **Solution:** Formulate hypotheses explicitly as hypothetical ("I wonder whether …"). Treat the client as the expert on themselves. **5. Between-session tasks are not done.** The client comes every week without the last assignment. — **Solution:** Don't accept it without comment, but make it a topic: "What happened that the task was not possible? What does that tell us?" **6. The counselor themselves is "on autopilot."** Schemata run their course, but the session is not alive. — **Solution:** Supervision. Deliberately design one session per week "differently" — an unfamiliar question, a different order, a silence.

FAQ — Six central questions from practice

1. Must I carry through all five phases in every session?

No. The model is a heuristic, not a dogma. In crisis sessions, phase 1 can fill the whole hour. In closing sessions, phase 5 can be extended. What matters is inner clarity: Where am I right now? Do I have a hypothesis? When does clarifying the concern end?

2. How precisely do I keep to the time anchors?

Not pedantically. The time figures are orientation — if phase 2 reaches a solution after 12 instead of 15 minutes, that's good, not too early. Helpful: keep a wall clock in view, your own silence at the midpoint of the session, a deliberate opening of phase 5 with "We have ten minutes left — what would be important to you now?"

3. What if I have no hypothesis in phase 4?

Frequent. Several options: (a) formulate an honest "what I'm still missing" statement — clients often experience this as a relief; (b) ask the client themselves for their explanation ("Where do you think this comes from?"); (c) leave out phase 4 and instead expand phase 5 — condensation as a standalone intervention.

4. When do I use the Milan phases instead of the ones described here?

The original Milan pre-/session/inter-/post-session structure presupposes a team. Not applicable 1:1 in a solo setting. Those who work in co-therapy or with a reflecting team should keep to the original structure (Boscolo et al.). In the solo setting, the five-phase structure described here is the practicable variant.

5. Can I also use the phase structure in group or family settings?

Yes, with adaptations. In family settings, phase 1 needs considerably longer (letting each person arrive). Phase 2 becomes contracting with several people — whose concern is it? Phase 3 often uses the genogram directly in the room (constellation, sculpture). Phase 4 aims at systemic movement, not an individual hypothesis. Phase 5 must involve all participants.

6. How do I document a session in 3 sentences?

Standard suggestion: Sentence 1 — What was the concern today? Sentence 2 — Which hypothesis is in the room? Sentence 3 — Which between-session task / next step? Ongoing documentation needs no more than that. For deeper reflection, a separate supervision journal.

Phase card as a table card

The following page contains the five-phase overview as a printable table card for the session. You can detach this page, lay it beside you, and use it as an anchor during the conversation.

Five phase boxes with time anchor, core questions, and what-happens-here notes.
Note lines for the most important keywords of the session.
The explanations for each phase can be found on the preceding pages.

Five-Phase Session Card

Phase	Time	Core question
1. Arriving & updating	5–10'	"How are you today?" / "What has happened?"
2. Clarifying & focusing the concern	10–15'	"What should we talk about today?" / "What would be a good outcome?"
3. Genogram & exploration	15–25'	"Who in your family has ever experienced something like this?" / "What pattern stands out?"
4. Hypothesis & intervention	10–15'	"What strikes me … how do you see that?" / "Imagine this were solved — what would be different then?"
5. Closing & between-session task	5–10'	"What are you taking away today?" / "What are the concrete next steps?"

Session notes

Date / client code / session no.

Phase 1 — Updating (what has happened?)

Phase 2 — Today's concern

Phase 3 — Genogram observations, patterns

Phase 4 — Hypothesis / intervention

Phase 5 — What the client takes away / between-session task / follow-up appointment

Sources and further reading

Schlippe, Arist von / Schweitzer, Jochen: Lehrbuch der systemischen Therapie und Beratung I — Das Grundlagenwissen. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Session structuring in the systemic setting (Heidelberg model).
Tomm, Karl (1987): Interventive Interviewing I — Strategizing as a Fourth Guideline. Family Process 26. Phase logic of the interview.
Tomm, Karl (1988): Interventive Interviewing III. Family Process 27, 1–15. Four question types (linear, circular, strategic, reflexive) as a session tool.
Boscolo, Luigi / Cecchin, Gianfranco / Hoffman, Lynn / Penn, Peggy: Milan Systemic Family Therapy. Session format of the Milan school (pre-session, session, inter-session, intervention, post-session).
de Shazer, Steve / Berg, Insoo Kim: Lösungsorientierte Kurzzeittherapie. Carl-Auer. Solution-focused session structure (what was better, scaling questions, compliment).
Hogrefe Dorsch — Lexikon der Psychologie: entry "Mailänder Modell." Freely available online.
Carl-Auer Systemisches Lexikon — entries "Hypothetisieren," "Lösungsfokussierung," "Zirkuläres Fragen" (carl-auer.de/magazin/systemisches-lexikon).
DGSF Wissensportal — specialist articles on session structures and phase models (dgsf.org/service/wissensportal).
McGoldrick, Monica / Gerson, Randy / Petry, Sueli (2020): Genograms — Assessment and Treatment, 4th edition. W. W. Norton. Application of the genogram in ongoing sessions.

Sources as of 2026-06-03. The five phases are a didactic grid — not a binding standard model of the systemic associations. Different schools count differently (3 phases in solution-focused work, 6 phases in the classic Milan structure). When applying it independently, deliberately choose and reflect on the school reference.

#sitzungsstruktur