But perhaps we are more daring than we give ourselves credit for. I think this is especially true if you are using a solutions-focused (SF) approach to change, whether as a practitioner or as a client.
So, how is the SF approach to change daring?
But actually we could argue that's merely realistic, a well-founded perspective that dispenses with the assurances and certainties of other models that tell you - explicitly or implicitly that this (according to the model and to the expert who is administering the model) is how things are and how they will be. With SF we take the view that the more complex the situation, the more indeterminate the outcome.
For the practitioner, this attitude is captured in the SF stance of 'not knowing’. During the conversation the practitioner makes no pretence of knowing how things will turn out and makes no assumption of knowing better than the client what will be good for the client.
Next we are daring to offer an interactional view. We are curious about who will be doing what with whom, what will be noticeably different in the world. This is expressed in crisp, detailed descriptions of day to day life, with nothing hidden in vague depths of in-the-head psychology or by the obscurities of half-digested neuroscience.
SF also dares to be unashamedly conversational and modestly single-case specific. Rather than proposing truths for all time, it’s simply a conversation with you - now - about what you want and how you might consider your preferences, resources and possible signs of progress.
Yet part of the elegance of the SF model is that any step that might emerge from the conversation isn't described as ‘daring' (which could be scarily off-putting). It’s described as small. Or in some cases it is not described at all: instead you are asked what you might notice if things had improved just a bit. Any step towards getting there is only lightly hinted at in the space between your description of slight improvement and your awareness of current circumstances.
That makes any action (comparatively and more apparently) easy, which is hugely appealing. What’s about to happen is not presented as a courageous leap, more a plausible and attractive possibility. And one that is supported by reassuringly-evident buoyancy aids - all the resources and successes you have been discussing up to this point, the evidence that shows you are already this high on the scale or that you've had some success at this sort of stuff before.
Your daring, though not named as such, is founded on security and routine. We are always stepping into the unknown for that is the nature of the future, but with SF we are doing so with an embrace of possible progress and the clarity of knowing what we want.