Moving through the Motivational Fields of Well-being

Motivation is a topic I am quite passionate as well as motivated to write about. I am interested in it for two different but interconnected reasons. First, I want to know what moves us to act and live a certain way, so in a more precise sense, this could fall into drive and need satisfaction, but also how motivation can engender, create, and sustain beliefs. My own motivation in all of this is to relate and integrate beliefs and actions into a drive for better and improved holistic health and wellbeing, that is, promoting and ideally leading to physical, emotional, mental, and psychological wellness.

I had the pleasure to attend a webinar by Dr. Chris Johnstone from the College of Well-being who discussed many of the factors that I am interested in exploring. Without motivation, this intrinsic push, we would not be able to bring about necessary and significant changes and improvements in our health and lives, so it is of importance both for me personally on how to deal with and heal various aspects of myself including my private and professional life, but it is also relevant for effectively transmitting that gained knowledge to others.

Yet one of the things to keep in mind, contrary to our general and overall perception, is that motivation is not stable. In fact, it fluctuates; it waxes and wanes. We cannot be constantly motivated throughout the day, the same way, we do not want to be driven at every moment of our life as this would be quite taxing on our energy levels. Out of necessity and for our own good, we need downtime to use for rest, pause, and reflection.

Moreover, motivation can be influenced easily and can be, for better or worse, rather gullible. Conversations can sway us one way or another. We can motivate ourselves and others to do what is beneficial and healthy, and this is something I am aiming and driving for, which is indeed my main motivation for writing. But communication can be used for ill means and shady purposes or it might simply be ineffective regardless of the underlying intentions. The person can be pushy and bossy wanting to have their way, and they may try to convince you to do things you are not inclined nor willing to do in the first place.

Or the way a person with good intentions, often a parent or maybe a friend, tries to communicate may be too pushy and demanding for us to accept, let alone adopt their point of view. They may even engage in shaming or belittling us, which would have, motivationally speaking, the exact opposite intended effect: we rebel against them and refuse and reject their suggestion, regardless if it is beneficial or not. In other words, I will try not to push my ideas and experiences down your throat but need to keep up avenues of respect and courtesy and merely give you the ball and put it into your court to play with. You may choose to take up playing with that idea or just let it be. This would be up to you.

To put motivation into perspective, we need to briefly trace its history. In fact, motivational interviews and interactions are an outgrowth of the humanistic concepts and ideas of Carl Rogers. They have been further developed and elaborated by William Miller and Stephen Rollnick. Motivational theories involve seeing the person through empathic and sympathetic eyes and to give them the space they need and ideally create an environment of unconditional love and acceptance for them, which are terms and actions proposed by Carl Rogers.

To achieve real foundational change in a person and to motivate them for further action, we must refrain from pushing and confronting them. This has been the commonly accepted but harmful and counterproductive method of dealing with addictions, for instance. The last thing a person afflicted with an addiction wants and needs is a sermon, punishment, or rejection from loved ones, caregivers, and health care and mental health practitioners.

The most productive results would be achieved through a collaborative conversation style. The confrontational style generally does not work because we do not want or like to be told what to do. This may bring up feelings of inadequacy and incompetency and could hearken back to our years of childhood where parents and teachers would scold us and make us feel bad, ashamed, and guilty about ourselves and our actions. In fact, resistance is the enemy of motivation.

However, a collaborative communication style, one that is not lecturing and is not pushy and demanding would strengthen a person’s own motivation and commitment to change. To achieve that, we first need to listen. This is not just hearing what the person says, its content, but rather perceiving and feeling what it is they are trying to communicate to us. It is a deep form of listening in which the other person has our full and undivided attention. It is also a kind of listening that we are generally not accustomed to in our hectic lives where we tend to multitask and run about and run around. In fact, we need to take the time to practice this skill of deep listening as it may not come to us naturally.

Moreover, in motivational interviewing, we want the “change talk” to come out of the mouth of the client. It is again not telling them what to do but putting the ball into their court and asking them what it is they want to do with it. In this type of communication, the will is predominant and most important, that is the express intention and desire to change on a certain level or to modify certain actions and behaviors.

A person that reaches out for help is usually propelled by this desire for change. They experience an inspirational dissatisfaction and are fed up with the status quo regarding one or various aspects of life. But instead of jumping and rushing to conclusions, suggestions, and treatments, we must first explore what the person really wants to do about that situation or condition. In fact, we want to find the want behind the should, and this would pave the way for how to do and go about doing it. Ideally, we want suggestions and improvements to come from the afflicted person themselves.

In motivational interviewing, there is a four-process model. We begin with engaging, and that is a sort of setting the stage and answers to the question who. At this point, we are trying to get on the same page and build trust and rapport with each other. It should not be a one-sided or unidirectional conversation since to build rapport both need to engage and disclose relevant personal information to each other.

Once the conditions have been set and the person is willing to openly talk about their issues, then we move to focusing, that is, working together to have or reach a shared and agreed focus. This is more about what it is we are talking about and dealing with. We would streamline our conversation on and around the given topic.

The next step is evoking. Here we try to gently elicit responses from the mouth of the client. We expect them to tell us about their reasons and perceptions and this boils down to the how of change. In other words, we are drawing out what is important to them and how it could work. We are distilling elements of will - the intention and desire for change - combined with the way or direction: what it is the person needs to do to reach the desired outcome. This is paving the way for effective and sustainable change.

This would then lead to the final stage of the four-process model, which is planning. At this stage, we are together shaping and working out the specific details of the subsequent steps to take. This is basically the action plan that turns out to be, for the most part, based on and around ideas proposed by the clients themselves. In this case, we are facilitating the conversation and may occasionally guide and steer them in a suggested direction, but we are not telling the other person what to do.

It is indeed a collaborative conversation style and a process and development that is mutually involved and engaging. It is not merely the person looking for advice and suggestions and us telling and teaching them what to do and how to go about it, but it is a more explorational style, a common and unifying quest for positive and lasting change.

Yet we ought to keep in mind that this is not necessarily a linear style or process, but rather it circles and delineates layers of engagement. Sometimes, or rather often, we need to go back to the first stage of engaging as the person may occasionally loosen their rapport and trust in the connection and communication with us.

We must also be aware that evoking is not always comfortable, and that the other person could close or shut down, so we would need to re-engage them and get them back on track and on the same page. In fact, engagement is a predictor of outcome, and the more engaged the other person is, the better the results would turn out to be.

Engagement is also a key coaching and teaching skill and it goes hand in hand with motivation. I know from personal experience that if my students are not engaged, that is they either lack trust and rapport or lack interest in the topic and content or both, it is going to be very difficult for them to become motivated.

It is essential to understand the other person’s perspective, where they are coming from and to have a clear-eyed focus on the road and obstacles ahead. There would certainly be cognitive dissonance at play in the interaction. This is the discrepancy or uncomfortable gap that exists between where the person is and where they would like to be.

Put differently, they are here (the current state) and they want to be there (the preferred state). Throughout the process and the conversation, uncomfortable feelings will be brought to the surface, so it is essential that there is safety. We need to make the environment safe and sound so that others can feel comfortable enough to talk about uncomfortable issues.

One of the best ways for doing that by providing us with core tools is the OARS model. The O stands for open questions. The questions are open-ended enough to draw out the thoughts, reflections, and emotions of the other person. For example, when it comes to the common question of how old the person is, we would be less interested in the exact age of the person but rather how their age makes them feel or how they feel about their age.

Moreover, we want to affirm as much as we can. That is, we would be actively supporting their agency as well as notice, underscore, and encourage strengths in their answers. We want them to take positive steps forward and want to affirm and reward their ideas and initiatives whenever possible and feasible.

The next step would be reflective listening. This is usually echoing back what you hear and is part and parcel of the Rogerian client-centered counseling technique. We want them to re-think and re-evaluate their answers by repeating it back to them. It also serves a second purpose, namely, to check for validation and to confirm that we have understood the other person correctly and are indeed on the same page.

The last step is summarizing. This can lead to longer reflections and thoughts about the process. We basically collect what they say and offer it back to them. This would be composed of aspects and solutions that have been said and covered during the conversation. We can also be reiterating and reconfirming specific plans for action.

It is important to underline that we are not controlling or setting the agenda, but it is the other person who brings items to the table. Yet we do need to have a common focus, and this means not just following everything the person says and suggests but rather to guide and direct them in the best possible direction. Throughout the process, we are trying to draw out motivational energy, but we are always aware of certain pitfalls.

For instance, the opposite of change talk is sustain talk. This is the conflicting, counterproductive and impeding desire of holding onto the status quo. It often happens because people are working with and through mixed feelings. There is part of the self that wants to stick to the known here and now versus the undetermined and undefined there.

This conflict or resistance can be most strongly felt at the initial stages of the conversation where the other person is cautious and wary. That is when engaging and affirming them would help to create rapport and trust so that they feel more at ease in the situation.

Nonetheless, it is important that any type of affirmation be accurate and genuine. You should not affirm what is not in the best interest of the other person nor should you twist and distort information and feelings about the topic or the other person. Most of the time, the other person would sense or perceive this, and they could break off their trust and rapport with you.

Finally, you want to always aim for progress but not for perfection. Perfection is not an ideal state, and it is the perfect way of de-motivating another person. The focus should be more on manageable steps that can be taken from the here and now and that would gradually, with patience and persistent effort, take us towards an ideal and desired state.

But it should be a realistic outcome that we have in mind. And it is most important to keep in mind that the path always lies in the hands of the other person. We can serve as a map or tour guide, but the journey must be undertaken by the other person. But at this point, they would have already taken the crucial and all-important first step, which is of itself quite an accomplishment, to begin with.