In the early years of the development of the Strengths Model, the call to provide case management services from a strengths-based framework represented a significant paradigm shift for behavioral health services. Strengths Model Case Management entered into a behavioral health landscape that had been traditionally dominated by deficit-based approaches. This landscape still exists today, and it is often reinforced by funding streams and insurance requirements that emphasize identifying, addressing, and resolving problems.
This places organizations in a difficult position of wanting to carry out the “strengths-based” directives that appear almost universally now in their vision and mission statements and the pressures to address the myriad of challenges faced by the people they serve.
Staff within these organizations also experience this tension. While most case managers enter into this field with a desire to be strengths-based with the people they serve, at times this concept seems conflictual when the situations they encounter with people are filled with problems, barriers, and challenges.
Some of this dilemma is embedded in misconceptions about what being “strengths-based” really means. Some can also be attributed to case managers not always having the guidance, tools, and skills to employ effective strengths-based interventions.
Over the years, we have heard a wide range of phrases that encompass these misconceptions around what it means to be “strengths-based.” These include a view that being strengths-based means:
- Just saying nice things about people
- Always focusing on the positive
- Reframing deficits, problems, and negatives into strengths
- Avoiding difficult conversations
- Looking on the bright side of things
These are superficial and shallow platitudes that fail to grasp the complexity of strengths-based practice. At a minimum, they are not very useful or helpful views for practice. Potentially more detrimental, these views can stifle the learning of effective strengths-based approaches that will help case managers respond to the multitude of challenging situations they face.
Below are three common misconceptions about what it means to be strengths-based. What follows are a few ways Strengths Model Case Management approaches each perceived dilemma.
To learn more about strengths-based approaches, strategies, and interventions, register for one of our Strengths Model Case Management workshops – Click here
Common Myths About Strengths-Based Practice
Myth #1: Being strengths-based means we can only talk about positive things
Strengths-based practice is about starting where the person is at. When we enter into a relationship with a person in services, their perception of themselves, their current situation, their past experiences, and their internal affect isn’t always positive. Life is not always positive. Only focusing on the positive is invalidating a person’s experience.
Sometimes we turn to positivity because of our own discomfort with a situation or a person’s expression of emotions. We may not know exactly what to say or have easy answers or clear solutions. Trying to draw attention to the positive in a difficult situation is often done with good intentions. We want to be comforting and reassuring and help the person shift to a more hopeful place.
Being strengths-based, though, is about authentically engaging with people during painful, uncomfortable, or distressing times, not avoiding the discomfort. Staying grounded, actively listening, and responding to people with empathy is a strengths-based approach. It is an opportunity to validate that it’s okay to not always feel okay. It communicates that we sincerely want to understand the person’s point of view and the thoughts and emotions that surface for them, whatever they may be.
Being strengths-based isn’t about solely focusing on the positive; it’s about being able to see and hear the strengths that exist amid the pain, distress, discomfort, and even sometimes the negativity a person may experience. Being strengths-based is about acknowledging both/and.
For example, “Losing this job is disappointing for you AND I know it’s important for you to find a way to provide for your family.” Or “It was frightening experiencing a panic attack in the grocery store, AND it took a lot of courage to get what you needed and make it back home.” Or “Having a relapse this weekend wasn’t what you planned, and you feel discouraged, AND it sounds like your brother was supportive and helpful to you.” Being strengths-based is about ensuring that people feel heard and validated AND creating space for potential movement to emerge.
Myth #2: Being strengths-based means we can’t discuss challenges with people
Some people think they can’t have conversations with people about substance use, symptoms, or any challenge that might make goal achievement difficult for a person because it’s not “strengths-based.” It all depends on how we approach these conversations.
First, we must approach these conversations from a grounded place. We can’t be myopically focused on the challenge, which leads us toward reactive approaches. Our investment must be in the person, their well-being, and respect for choice and autonomy. This is not ignoring the challenge. It is recognizing that it is the person who is experiencing this challenge and prioritizing our efforts to help them navigate it.
Second, we must approach these conversations with empathy, compassion, and avoiding judgment. If we want to have open, transparent conversations with people about the challenges they experience, then we need to create an environment where we remove shame, blame, or judgment from the equation. People often feel enough of these things without us.
Third, we must approach these conversations with an openness to seeing, acknowledging, and reinforcing the strengths that exist within the person amid any challenge they are experiencing. This includes attentiveness to the person’s values, aspirations, efforts, capabilities, and anything they bring to the challenge that might help them navigate it.
Being strengths-based doesn’t mean we avoid challenges. It means finding ways to strengthen our working relationship with the person so that we can see the challenge from their perspective, even if it’s messy and complex. It means working to strengthen the working relationship enough that we can discuss how the challenge may impact core values, aspirations, or goals held by the person. It means working to strengthen the relationship so that we can align with a person around a potential next step, even if that step is just exploratory.
Myth #3: Being strengths-based means we can’t discuss potential consequences involved in a decision
Sometimes, the challenges people experience can have immediate consequences if they are not discussed. Being strengths-based doesn’t mean we avoid these conversations. Once again, whether we are being strengths-based depends on how these conversations are approached. Everything in Myth #2 applies here.
A key to discussing consequences is approaching them from informed exploration. This means we consider any information about potential consequences associated with a decision as tentative. This does not mean that a consequence of something will not happen. It just means that we don’t approach the conversation as “if you do this, then this will happen.”
This potentially places the person in a defensive posture and increases the likelihood of a verbal confrontation between us and the person over the situation. It is more effective to objectively discuss the information we have that might impact a decision. For example, “the property manager is saying that you will be evicted if rent isn’t paid this month,” or “your mom is saying that you won’t be able to stay at the house if you are using meth,” or “not having tags with current registration could put you at risk of losing your license and not having a vehicle for work.”
All of these things could have significant consequences for the person. What is important is staying grounded and aligned with the person as you explore multiple vantage points of a situation without an over-investment in moving in one direction over another. This is not always an easy thing to do, especially when we care about the person and want them to choose a path that seems most likely to avoid the consequence. For more discussion about how the Strengths Model approaches consequences, Click Here
Final Thoughts
Being strengths-based doesn’t mean we can’t talk with people about the challenges they are facing (or have faced). It doesn’t mean that we can’t validate the pain that people have experienced. Being strengths-based means that we authentically enter into a relationship with people, recognize the strengths they possess, and support the person in leveraging these to move forward in life, even amid the challenges and pain they are experiencing (or have experienced).
Being strengths-based doesn’t mean standing on the sidelines and merely cheering people on. It means joining with people and helping them navigate the messiness of life. Being strengths-based doesn’t mean pulling back and distancing ourselves from things that are less than positive. Being strengths-based means being comfortable enough in our approach to practice that we can notice the multiple realities that are present in any encounter with a person.
Yes, problems, challenges, and barriers exist for any human being. And for some people those problems, challenges, and barriers are significantly more daunting and overwhelming than others. Yet, the reality exists that for every person experiencing challenges, there is also present a person’s strengths – values, hopes, dreams, aspirations, capabilities, and potentially useful/helpful personal and environmental resources. To see these strengths and, more importantly, help the person access and make use of these strengths, we must feel comfortable entering into the discomfort, distress, and even pain that may also be part of that person’s lived experience.
