Problem resource solution metaphorical cards: layout, reading method and full example

The problem–resource–solution method uses three metaphorical images to separate an experience from habitual labels, notice available support, and turn an association into one small, testable action. The first card does not diagnose you or explain what is “wrong”. The second helps you identify an internal or external resource. The third does not predict a ready-made outcome; it prompts you to define a next step. The meaning belongs to the person looking at the image, so any card may be rejected, replaced, or read differently. A useful result is not an elegant interpretation. It is a clear note: what is happening, what can support you, what you will do, and when you will review the real effect.

I remember a session in which someone chose a fogged window for the first position. I expected a conversation about uncertainty. Instead, they said, “I can see everything. I just cannot open it.” That sentence changed the work. The difficulty was not a lack of understanding; it was the sense that none of the available options was permitted. The picture did not reveal a hidden truth. It gave the person language for something they had been avoiding.

What the three-card method explores

The layout is useful when a question is too broad: “Why am I stuck?”, “How do I get out of this?”, or “What can I rely on?” It looks at three layers in order:

1. Problem — how you experience the situation and which observable facts sit underneath that experience.
2. Resource — what is already available within you and around you.
3. Solution — which action becomes possible without asking the image to guarantee a result.

Metaphorical cards do not establish a diagnosis, another person’s true motives, the outcome of a negotiation, or one objectively correct decision. The same picture may suggest safety to one person, control to another, and boredom to a third. There is no fixed dictionary that overrides the user’s association.

Browse other metaphorical-card practices

Open and closed selection

Decide how images will be chosen before you begin.

• Open selection: all cards are face up. The person deliberately chooses the image that best expresses the position. This is often better for sensitive material because it preserves control.
• Closed selection: the card is drawn face down. An unexpected picture may interrupt a familiar story, but it never has to be accepted.
• Mixed selection: choose the problem openly and draw the resource and solution at random, while keeping the right to replace any card.

The right to reject an image is part of the method. “This card does not fit” already contains information. You may ask what feels wrong—the scene, the mood, the role of a figure, or the hope the picture seems to impose. Do not argue that resistance proves the card is important.

The three positions and their questions

I usually ask for a literal description before interpretation: “Two people are standing on opposite sides of a table,” rather than, “They do not trust each other.” That brief pause protects the reading from an answer that arrives too quickly.

Step-by-step protocol

1. Record the starting facts

Before choosing any cards, write down:

• what happened;
• what has already been tried;
• what is under your control;
• what depends on other people;
• what deadline or constraint exists.

A fact sounds like: “My manager postponed the meeting twice.” An assumption sounds like: “My manager does not think I deserve a promotion.” Both layers matter, but they should not be merged.

2. Frame the question without diagnosing yourself

Instead of “Why do I sabotage myself?”, try: “What makes the next step difficult, and what can support me?” Instead of “Why does this always happen to me?”, ask: “How am I defining the problem, and which action can I test?”

3. Choose the problem image

Name three visible details, your first emotional or bodily response, and one association. Then create at least two possible meanings. A closed door could be an obstacle, a boundary, or protection from moving too soon.

4. Divide the resource into internal and external support

An internal resource may be a skill, experience, the ability to tolerate a pause, the right to say no, or the capacity to organise evidence. An external resource may be a person, agreement, information, money, an hour of time, a tool, or a safe place. A positive-looking card does not make an external resource available automatically. If you intend to rely on someone else, check their consent and capacity.

5. Translate the solution into action

“Become more confident”, “let go of the past”, and “trust the process” are too vague to test. An action needs a verb, a size, and a time frame: write three questions for a conversation; request a twenty-minute meeting; cancel one optional task; gather two documents; make one trial call.

6. Check realism

Ask:

• Can I begin without another person changing first?
• Do I have the time, money, and energy?
• Is permission or consent required?
• Can the step be made smaller?
• Which real event would show whether the hypothesis helped?

Full example: asking about a new role

This is a composite case. Marina has been carrying part of a team lead’s responsibilities for six months, but her title and pay have not changed. She keeps postponing the conversation because she fears a direct refusal. Her manager has moved the meeting twice but has not said that the discussion is closed. Marina has a record of completed work, positive feedback from colleagues, and the option to consider roles elsewhere.

Her question is: “What makes the role conversation difficult, what can support me, and which step should I test?”

She chooses the cards openly:

1. Problem: a person carrying three suitcases while facing several doors.
2. Resource: a desk lamp illuminating a notebook, a phone, and a tidy stack of documents.
3. Solution: a bridge whose first section is clearly visible while the far end is still indistinct.

At first Marina calls the suitcases “too much responsibility”. Then she notices the doors. She is trying to gain recognition inside the company, avoid damaging the relationship with her manager, and keep an exit route—all in one conversation. The problem can now be stated without a diagnosis: too many questions and decisions have been bundled into one meeting.

The resource card produces two associations. The internal resource is Marina’s ability to organise facts and speak precisely. The external resources are a colleague who can review her evidence and the company’s written expectations for the next level. The phone reminds her that she needs to request a meeting with a clear agenda rather than wait for the right moment.

The bridge does not promise promotion. It suggests one segment of movement: separate a conversation about evidence from a demand for an immediate final decision.

Interpretation one: the conversation lacks structure

Marina is afraid of refusal, so in her head she is conducting five negotiations at once: title, pay, recognition, past unfairness, and her future in the company. The luggage represents overload. The lamp and documents suggest reducing the discussion to three observable points. The bridge becomes one 25-minute meeting with an agenda sent in advance.

Action: prepare a one-page note—current responsibilities, measurable outcomes, and the question about the formal next level—and request a meeting by Friday.

Criterion: the meeting is scheduled, and the manager names either the next formal step or a date by which a decision will be made.

Interpretation two: the feared answer may reveal the company’s limit

The luggage and doors may show that Marina already knows an internal promotion is not the only path. The documents then serve both as evidence for her manager and as material for a CV. The bridge suggests holding the conversation while setting a deadline after which she will begin an external search.

Action: conduct the meeting and record the concrete answer. If there is no process, criterion, or date within two weeks, prepare two applications for external roles.

Both readings lead to testable action. They will be distinguished not by deciding which image meaning is “correct”, but by the facts that appear after the conversation.

A realism matrix for the solution

When an image causes a strong reaction

A picture may bring tears, numbness, disgust, or an immediate wish to stop. There is no need to “push through resistance”.

1. Turn the card over or remove it.
2. Reorient to the room: name a few objects, feel your feet on the floor, and pause.
3. Ask whether the person wants to continue, choose another card, or end the exercise.
4. Do not demand an explanation or turn the reaction into a diagnosis.
5. If a topic repeatedly produces a state that is difficult to manage, discuss it with an appropriate professional rather than intensifying the exercise alone.

Stopping safely is not a failed reading. Sometimes it is the most accurate available action.

Common mistakes

Interpreting the picture for the user

“Red means anger” is a ready-made code. A better question is: “What did you notice first, and what does that colour mean to you here?”

Turning the problem into a personality label

“I am lazy”, “I am weak”, or “I ruin everything” gives no direction. Translate the label into observable behaviour: what happens, what is avoided, and at which moment movement stops.

Treating the resource as a compliment

“You have inner strength” sounds encouraging but does not show how to use it. Name the specific skill, support, or condition of access.

Making the solution too large

If the image suggests travel, it does not automatically mean quitting and moving abroad. The first step might be checking requirements, building a budget, or having one conversation.

Repeating the draw until the picture feels pleasant

A new image without new facts usually creates more material for self-persuasion. Complete the chosen action or change the question first.

The conclusion–action–criterion–date form

After the exercise, write four lines:

• Conclusion: which version of the problem is most useful now.
• Action: one step you can complete.
• Criterion: which observable fact will show the effect.
• Date: when you will return to the note.

For Marina:

• Conclusion: I am mixing a discussion of evidence with a demand for immediate recognition.
• Action: send a one-page agenda and request the meeting.
• Criterion: receive a concrete answer about process, criteria, and timing.
• Date: seven days after the meeting.

On the review date, record the real event rather than explaining the card after the fact. If the manager postpones again without offering a new time, that is information too.

Frequently asked questions

Must the cards be drawn face down?

No. Open selection often suits metaphorical cards because the person chooses an image consciously. Closed selection can introduce an unexpected association, but the card may always be rejected.

Can another person be the resource?

Yes, if their participation is genuinely available and agreed. An image of a friend or colleague does not create an obligation for them to help.

What if a card produces no association?

Describe it literally, wait, rotate it, or choose another card. A lack of association does not need to be labelled resistance.

Can this method be used for relationships?

It can explore your feelings, needs, boundaries, and preparation for a conversation. It cannot establish a partner’s thoughts, fidelity, or intentions.

Does it replace therapy or professional support?

No. It is a structured self-reflection practice, not diagnosis or treatment.

Continue with the Bridge metaphorical-card technique

Save the three images, your own associations, two possible readings, one action, and a review date. The value of the exercise appears not in how persuasive the interpretation sounded, but in whether it made the next piece of reality clearer.

— Sofia Rowan, Official Metaphorical Cards Practitioner at Reflecta