Motivational awareness has long been recognized as a significant dynamic in the formula for change. The concept has helped us individualize treatment by focusing on strategies appropriate to a patient’s position in the change process. The transtheoretical stages of change (Prochaska & Norcross, 2002) have become customary fare in training workshops, and the work of Miller and Rollnick (2002) a standard guide in many treatment programs.

The strategies of motivational enhancement therapy (MET) can be effectively applied to supervision. Another growth opportunity occurs when the supervisor models appropriate MET strategies. This isomorphic teaching approach provides a twofold learning process: it teaches MET while it encourages the supervisee’s movement through the change process.

Motivation to change is a self-enacted dynamic that increases the probability of developing and pursuing behavioral goals. For instance, parents find certain behaviors both effective and extremely counterproductive when pursuing self-enacting change and motivation for their children. This reminds me of a joke recently told to a group of parents by a middle school principal: arguing with an adolescent is like wrestling with a pig — you both get muddy and the pig loves it!

This anecdote serves to remind us of two important tenets in dealing with a pre-contemplator: avoid argument and roll with resistance. This is good advice for parents, proven to be effective with clients, and just as effective with those supervisees who lack the motivation to change. However, a lack of motivation on the supervisee’s part may be due to a lack of self-confidence rather than resistance to supervision. It also could be exacerbated by a supervisor who mislabels a counselor “resistant.”

Change theory, when applied to supervision, recognizes that motivation is not a trait that the counselor “has,” but is a product of context (e.g., the strength of the supervisory alliance). Similar to a major concept in MET, when a supervisor joins with a supervisee a level of genuineness and trust develops, opening the door to motivation and professional growth.

Over the last decade a number of research studies have shown that a strong working alliance in supervision leads to increased comfort by the supervisee, a higher level of motivation for continued growth, greater satisfaction with therapy, and improved counseling performance. One study in particular (Cashwell & Dooley, 2001) explained these concepts by an increase in self-efficacy resulting from the strength of the supervisory alliance. For a counselor in the pre-contemplative stage, the development of such an alliance has the potential to impact his or her level of motivation.

MET is a proven approach to trigger movement by a patient toward change and improved behavioral health. Its five basic principles (express empathy, develop discrepancy, avoid argument, roll with resistance, and support self-efficacy) are also useful tenets to follow while developing a supervisory relationship (Miller & Rollnick, 2002). Some counselors feel threatened by supervision and behave counterproductively. Once supervision is seen as positive, many counselors become self-motivated to reap the benefits of the supervisory relationship. The MET principles are valuable guidelines and when used in clinical supervision have the potential to create a context conducive to the enhancement of counselor self-motivation.

Thomas G. Durham, PhD, LADC ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) is Project Director at Danya International, where he coordinates a worldwide program of clinical supervision to alcohol and drug counselors throughout the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.

References
Cashwell, T. H., & Dooley, K. (2001). The impact of supervision on counselor self-efficacy. The Clinical Supervisor, 20, 39-48.
Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.
Prochaska, J. O., and Norcross, J. C. (2002). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

This article is published in Counselor,The Magazine for Addiction Professionals, June 2004, v.5, n.3, p. 42.

No one has commented on this article.

Please keep your comments brief and on topic, and remember that this is not a discussion thread.
Name :
Comment(s) :

J! Reactions 1.09.00 • Professional Site License
Copyright © 2006 S. A. DeCaro

---