IX Coach

Coaching approaches

Motivational interviewing in coaching

Motivational interviewing in coaching uses the method William R. Miller and Stephen Rollnick developed to help you explore your ambivalence about change. The coach listens closely, asks open questions and reflects back what you say, so that you hear your own reasons for changing. The method has many meta-analyses behind it, but those test it in clinical settings. No trial of motivational interviewing delivered as coaching turned up in the literature searched for this page.

What it is

A motivational interviewing conversation starts from the assumption that you already have some reasons to change and some reasons not to. The coach draws out both, so that the reasons for change become clearer to you than the reasons against.

Its style is collaborative rather than directive. The coach does not argue you into a goal. They reflect what you say, ask questions that open up your thinking, and acknowledge the effort you make. The decision stays with you.

Where it comes from

William R. Miller and Stephen Rollnick developed the method for people who are ambivalent about changing a behaviour. Lundahl et al. (2010) describe twenty-five years of empirical studies of it, and Hettema, Steele and Miller (2005) review its evidence base.

Passmore (2011) introduced the method for coaching psychology practice, and that article's own abstract describes it as a practitioner overview. Passmore and Whybrow (2018) also cover it in a coaching psychology handbook; only that chapter's title could be checked.

The principles underneath

Ambivalence is ordinary

Being torn about change is treated as normal, not as resistance to be overcome.

Your reasons, in your words

The coach draws out the reasons for change from you rather than supplying them.

Collaboration over argument

The method's stance is collaborative, so the coach does not argue for a particular outcome.

Autonomy stays with you

The decision to change, and the pace of it, remain yours.

How a session runs

  1. You name something you are thinking about changing, and say where you are on it right now.
  2. The coach asks open questions about what you want, what worries you about change, and what would be different if it happened.
  3. The coach reflects back what you said, sometimes more fully than you put it, so that you can hear it.
  4. You weigh the reasons for change against the reasons to stay as you are, in your own words.
  5. You end by choosing a next step you are willing to try, and saying how confident you are in it.

When it tends to fit

  • You know you want something to change and keep finding a reason to wait.
  • You feel two things at once about a decision, and each argument makes the other louder.
  • Someone tells you what to do, and you notice that you are arguing for the way things are.

What the research shows

Evidence: Randomized trials or meta-analyses

The meta-analyses on motivational interviewing are of the clinical method, not of coaching. Lundahl et al. (2010) included 119 studies: judged against weak comparison groups, MI produced small, durable results (average g = 0.28), and judged against specific treatments the results were not significant (average g = 0.09). Hettema, Steele and Miller (2005) summarise a meta-analysis of 72 clinical trials, in which the average short-term effect was 0.77 and fell to 0.30 at one-year follow-up. Hettema and Hendricks (2010) published a meta-analytic review for smoking cessation; only its title could be checked. No trial of motivational interviewing delivered as coaching turned up in the literature searched for this page.

Where the evidence is thin: The two meta-analyses report different effects, which reflects different comparisons and time points. The grade rests on clinical trials of the parent method, not on coaching. Lundahl et al. found no significant advantage over specific treatments, so the claim for the method is modest.

Sources

  1. Lundahl, B. W., Kunz, C., Brownell, C., Tollefson, D., & Burke, B. L. (2010). A Meta-Analysis of Motivational Interviewing: Twenty-Five Years of Empirical Studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(2), 137–160.
  2. Hettema, J., Steele, J., & Miller, W. R. (2005). Motivational Interviewing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 91–111.
  3. Hettema, J. E., & Hendricks, P. S. (2010). Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(6), 868–884.
  4. Passmore, J. (2011). Motivational Interviewing – a model for coaching psychology practice. The Coaching Psychologist, 7(1), 36–40.
  5. Passmore, J., & Whybrow, A. (2018). Motivational interviewing. In Handbook of Coaching Psychology.

Where it stops

The method was built for clinical settings, and the strongest research is there. Using it in coaching is a reasonable extension, but one that has not been tested in the sources found here.

Reflective listening can feel like being handled when it is used as a technique alone. The method depends on the coach being genuinely curious about what you think.

When change involves safety, risky substance use, or depression, a qualified clinician is the better choice. A coaching conversation can support that care, but it does not replace it.

Practices for this approach

Practice this with IX Coach

Try this practice