ABSTRACT
Early agreement (within the ®rst few sessions) between therapist and client on the tasks and goals of therapy is likely to be facilitative of the development of the working alliance, and as such may be indicative of a positive outcome of the therapy. Clients presenting for psychotherapy generally have an idea of their overall goals for therapy, which commonly relate to symptomatic relief. Many of these clients are also aware that considerable intrapsychic and interpersonal restructuring work may well be required for the resolution of their presenting problems. The problem for transactional analysts in contracting is in how to negotiate a clear contract that leaves room for ¯exibility and for potentials to emerge in the work. One dif®culty we have is that if we assume that the client is entering therapy in a relatively script-bound position, then any articulated goals are potentially constrained by the client's capacity to envisage an autonomous state. The client's stated goals may also be script-driven and may relate to a furthering of the individual's script. The humanistic value base of TA assumes that at some level clients do indeed have this knowledge, although it may well be rather hidden at the outset. Hargaden and Sills (2002) suggest that a good therapeutic contract should ideally relate to increased options, rather than committing oneself to a set outcome or course of action from the start of therapy. This more relational approach to contracting is in contrast with TA approaches that value speci®city in contracting (Stewart, 1996, 2007).
