Introduction: The Motivation Paradox
The popular narrative of high achievement, especially in elite sport, often frames motivation as a simple equation of willpower plus discipline. We assume the success of top performers is built on a foundation of relentless drive, an unwavering desire to improve, and an innate ability to just “push through” any obstacle. The common wisdom suggests that change is a matter of force.
But the science of human motivation reveals a far more complex and nuanced reality. A counselling approach called Motivational Interviewing (MI), which has proven effective in fields ranging from addiction treatment to elite sport psychology, challenges our most basic assumptions about what it takes to change. By focusing on how to build a person’s own motivation, rather than imposing it from the outside, MI uncovers some surprising truths.
This article distils four counter-intuitive takeaways from the research behind Motivational Interviewing. These principles offer a more effective way for anyone—from athletes and coaches to managers and parents—to think about fostering genuine, lasting personal change.
Four Surprising Truths About Fostering Change
1. The Myth of the “Always Motivated” Athlete
It’s easy to assume that elite athletes, whose careers depend on peak performance, are always intrinsically motivated to engage in psychological training. However, research directly challenges the “assumption that all athletes are motivated for change.” Research cited in a study by Mack et al. challenges this, showing that in one sample of NCAA athletes, the largest group (37%) were “precontemplators,” meaning they were not yet ready to engage in psychological skills training.
Why does this happen even at the highest levels of sport? The reasons are fundamentally human. An athlete might be instructed to attend a session by a coach and simply “don’t actually want to be there,” or they may not believe a problem exists in the first place. As one practitioner in the Mack et al. study noted:
“… because they can come because their coach has told them to, and they don’t actually want to be there, they don’t think there’s a problem, in which case it’s not about that resolution of ambivalence it’s just a conversation about what’s going on.
This insight is crucial because it reveals a common trap in management and parenting: we often mistake compliance for commitment. Ambivalence about change is a normal part of the human experience, and recognising this is the first step toward genuinely helping someone unlock their own motivation.
2. The Relationship Is the Real MVP, Not the Technique
When we think about psychology, we often focus on specific tools and techniques—the “what” of an intervention. But a large body of research suggests that the quality of the practitioner-client relationship, often called the “therapeutic alliance,” is a more consistent predictor of successful outcomes than the specific method used. As the Mack et al. study states, “The therapist as a person is cited as being more critical than intervention type”. This isn’t just a theory. A case study by Wood et al. illustrates this perfectly. The elite archer they worked with was initially sceptical of psychology altogether, reinforcing the idea that even top performers can be resistant. The practitioners used MI principles precisely to build the trust needed for other therapies to work.
Motivational Interviewing is a framework designed specifically to build this alliance. Historically, the discipline of applied sport psychology has focused more on the “what” of an intervention (like visualization techniques) than the “how” of its delivery. MI helps fill this gap, providing a clear answer to how a practitioner can build the rapport and trust necessary for other interventions to work. A case study by Wood et al. integrated MI with another therapy, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), specifically to “actively promote the working alliance and facilitates the action orientated process,” showing how a strong relational foundation can make other therapies significantly more effective.
3. The Hidden Danger in “Helping” Someone Change
One of the core strategies in MI is called “developing discrepancy.” This involves helping a person see the gap between their current behaviours and their most important goals and values. When someone recognises this conflict, it can create powerful momentum for change. However, research warns that this is a “double-edged sword.”
A paper by Markland et al. explains the potential negative outcome. Without genuine support for a person’s autonomy, developing discrepancy can lead to what psychologists call “introjected regulation.” This is an unhealthy form of motivation where “a person is motivated not by external controls, but by internalised, self-esteem related contingencies. A person…imposes pressure on themselves to act, feeling self-disparagement and shame when they fail at the behaviour, and pride and self-approval when they succeed.” This unhealthy pressure is often the result of ignoring a person’s ambivalence and trying to force change before they are ready, creating the very resistance we saw in Takeaway.
This results in an “ambivalent and unstable form of motivation” that is unlikely to last. This is a critical insight for anyone trying to help another person: even well-intentioned efforts to motivate can backfire if they feel controlling or coercive. For change to be sustainable, it must be rooted in personal choice, not pressure.
4. Many Experts Use This Approach Without Realizing It
Perhaps the most surprising finding comes from the Mack et al. study on sport psychologists. While very few of the practitioners reported using MI formally in their work, a deeper analysis of their methods revealed “considerable implicit use of MI.”
These experienced practitioners were intuitively using many of the core tenets of Motivational Interviewing without ever putting a name to it. The study identified several of these MI-adherent behaviors, including: “taking an athlete-centred approach, supporting athlete autonomy, reflective listening, demonstrating accurate empathy, and taking a non-prescriptive, guiding role.”
This discovery reveals that MI isn’t a radical or foreign concept. Instead, it’s a framework that codifies and structures what the most effective practitioners often do naturally. It shows that the “art” of building rapport can be translated into a teachable “science,” offering a valuable framework for “students and neophyte practitioners” to accelerate their own expertise. This makes it an invaluable tool for any professional whose work involves guiding others through the complex process of change.
The journey of personal change is rarely a straight line powered by sheer force of will. As the principles of Motivational Interviewing demonstrate, fostering genuine, lasting change is a far more nuanced process. It requires moving beyond the simple idea of “fixing” a problem and instead focusing on creating the right conditions for a person to find their own path forward.
By respecting ambivalence, prioritizing the quality of the relationship over any single technique, and carefully supporting autonomy, we can help unlock a person’s internal drive to grow. This collaborative approach is not only more respectful but, as the science shows, also far more effective.
Instead of asking, “How can I motivate them?”, what would happen if we started by asking, “How can I create the conditions for them to motivate themselves?”