7 Moving towards Change

“Life is flux” – Heraclitus
“If nothing changes, nothing changes” – Courtney C. Stevens

Introduction

In the previous chapter you were introduced to psychodynamic theory and its evolution, including the emphasis on the therapeutic relationship; the use of immediacy; an acknowledgement of the power of transference and counter-transference; and reflections on meaning in here-and-now discussions. 

In this chapter, you will build further on these ideas and develop an understanding of processes and considerations around change. In particular, this chapter will focus on two major theories – solution-focused therapy and motivational interviewing – as well as ideas from the transtheoretical model of change. Some of the key principles and strategies that will be discussed from these frameworks include an understanding of the different levels of readiness for change, approaches to goal setting, and strength-based ways of empowering clients to take hold responsibility for their change processes.

The chapter will explore the theoretical origins of these major approaches, including adaptations over time, and will introduce you to the underlying principles and ways of understanding change processes through lenses such as motivation and therapeutic engagement. You will also be introduced to important practice strategies such as eliciting and exploring change talk, assessing and building motivation, and developing client-driven and manageable change plans including seeking exceptions and creating detailed visions of preferred outcomes.

Theoretical Foundations

Solution-focused Therapy

In the 1970s, the Milwaukee Brief Family Therapy Centre (BFTC) became the starting point for what was later best known as solution-focused brief therapy. Led by therapists and researchers Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg, Eve Lipchik and colleagues, and directly inspired by the previous work of Milton Erickson, Gregory Bateson, Jay Haley, and the Mental Research Institute (MRI) in Palo Alto (Paul Watzlawick, John Weakland and Richard Fisch), the BFTC resolved to effectively create articulated frameworks of  practice for brief therapists based on principles of strategic therapy, systems theory, positive psychology and social constructionism, to be implemented through a collaborative therapeutic relationship and within briefer timeframes (often considered as an average of 6-10 sessions). It is worth noting that the ‘brief’ in brief therapy was intended to reflect the efficient nature of the therapy rather than reflecting a suggested timeframe. The BFTC model is generally goal-oriented, practical, and focused on the present and future, rather than delving deeply into the past. It often emphasises past successes over the origins of problems and examines how language influences the creation or limitation of options and solutions. This approach suggests that individuals enter therapy with a desire for change, but their main issue often stems from the fact that their previous attempts to solve the problem have either worsened the situation or made them feel more stuck (de Shazer, 1985).

Building on her earlier work with the Brief Family Therapy Centre, Insoo Kim Berg, together with co-author Peter De Jong, went on to further elaborate on the theoretical principles of the BFTC approach, to more explicitly articulate solution-focused therapy as a distinct model. In particular, their writing expanded on the key strategies and practices utilised within a solution-focused framework, including seeking exceptions, exploring future-focused questioning including use of the Miracle Question, and identifying client strengths and resources that might be utilised in pursuit of solutions. Shoham et al. (1995) particularly highlights a distinction between the earlier strategic work of the MRI and the solution-focused approach – that the former is problem-focused and urges clients to do something differently, while the latter is solution-focused and encourages clients to think differently.

Branching out from the established solution-focused framework, Bill O’Hanlon devised what he came to refer to as solution-oriented possibility therapy (later simplified to Possibility Therapy), along with Michele Weiner-Davis who had worked with Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg at the Brief Family Therapy Centre. While O’Hanlon had not worked directly with the group, he received mentoring from Milton Erickson and was similarly inspired by Erickson’s approach to therapy along with the strategic ideas of Haley and the MRI. Weiner-Davis went on to incorporate possibility therapy ideas into couple therapy and became well known in the 1980s as the “Divorce Buster”. While many of the underlying theoretical principles of possibility therapy overlap with those of solution-focused therapy, two key distinctions can be identified – the stronger acknowledgement of client’s emotions, as well as a greater acknowledgement of the role of context in forming client’s perception of problems including – the influence of gender, political and historical factors.

In more recent years, other authors and therapists have built further on the foundations of solution-focused therapy to form their own revised models. Two examples of these are solution-focused brief therapy Diamond (Elliott Connie) and solution-focused cognitive systemic therapy (SFCST), also known as the Bruges model (Luc Isebaert). Connie’s Diamond model of solution-focused therapy (Connie & Froerer, 2023) aims to simplify the existing SFT framework as a further evolution of the approach. The Diamond model places greater emphasis on identifying the desired outcome from the outset of counselling, and exploring the history of this outcome (where it may have shown up in the client’s life previously), the resources for the outcome (the strengths, qualities and skills the client possesses to help them achieve the outcome) and the future of the outcome (how the outcome will show up in the future). Isebaert’s Bruges Model of solution-focused therapy (Isebaert, 2016) takes a different approach, using inspiration from early SFT models such as de Shazer’s brief family therapy model and integrating other therapeutic models and ideas including cognitive therapy, existential therapy, systemic ideas, and common factors research.

Transtheoretical Model of Change

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, psychologist and researcher James Prochaska began a task of exploring the nature of change – initially the specific ways in which people change on their own, without therapy – with the view of identifying common elements across the range of available therapeutic models and approaches (Prochaska, 1979). Despite an initial sense of disorganisation and disagreement between approaches, Prochaska subsequently identified specific processes of change which could be seen in different forms and iterations across the varying models, including such processes as consciousness-raising, self re-evaluation, and commitment (Prochaska, 1979; Prochaska et al., 1994, pp. 27-32). Building further on this comparative analysis, Prochaska, together with colleague Carlo DiClemente, set about attempting to explore how often clients used these different change processes when attempting to change on their own. In the process of their research, Prochaska and DiClemente started to identify themes around change occurring through a series of changes, leading the development of their transtheoretical model of change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982). With the subsequent addition of John Norcross to the research team, the group began a series of studies and papers exploring the application and viability of the model, particularly in relation to identified areas of desired behaviour change such as smoking and alcohol/substance use, further solidifying their model.

In brief, the transtheoretical model of change suggests that people progress through specific stages of change, each requiring different change processes and with different levels of ease or challenge. While stages are generally not skipped, some stages may be worked through quickly, while others may create a sense of ‘stuckness’. The stages of change are identified as: Pre-contemplation; Contemplation; Preparation; Action; Maintenance; Termination (Prochaska, 1979; DiClemente & Prochaska, 1982; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982; Prochaska et al, 1994). In particular, the model highlights the importance of matching processes to the relevant stage of change, as well as the vital need to match therapeutic treatments to the stage of change that the client is currently in – indeed, early models were 93% predictive of clients that would drop out of therapy due to such mismatching (Prochaska et al., 1994, p. 58). Additionally, as an identified transtheoretical model, the approach encourages integration and diversity of therapeutic strategies from across different theories, rather than attempting to propose a new orthodoxy and self-contained approach in and of itself (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982).

Motivational Interviewing

Motivational interviewing is often thought of as ‘client-centred therapy with a twist’. Developed by William Miller and Stephen Rollnick in the 1980s, motivational interviewing has clear links to Carl Rogers’ person-centred therapy, with overlapping principles around understanding the client’s perspective on their life and their presenting concern, and the ever-present acknowledgement of the role of accurate empathy and unconditional positive regard in providing the appropriate circumstances and conditions for change and growth to occur. In particular, the approach was developed as a method for “enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence” (Miller & Rollnick, 2002, p. 25). In this sense, motivational interviewing shares some overlap with Prochaska and DiClemente’s ideas of the stages of change, such as the acknowledgement that people approach change with different degrees of readiness, and that reasons for not changing are regarded as valid and normalised as a stage of change.

Motivational interviewing was particularly developed with behaviour change in mind, again with similar areas of focus as the transtheoretical model of change such as alcohol and substance use. It takes the position that clients generally enter therapy with a degree of ambivalence about change, as well as acknowledging a normal ‘ebb and flow’ of motivation across therapeutic work. Using language such as ‘motivation’ as opposed to ‘resistance’ allows for a more respectful stance with clients, as well as more open acknowledgement of the different ways in which people do change. As a point of differentiation from the stages of change model, motivational interviewing can be seen as a stand-alone approach in and of itself, while also holding potential to be integrated with other approaches such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, or to be used as a pre-treatment approach such as working with substance abuse programs. Indeed, meta-analyses of the use of motivational interviewing as a pre-treatment approach as opposed to a stand-alone approach have demonstrated larger effect sizes and longer-lasting results (Burke et al., 2003; Hettema et al., 2005).

Key Principles

Solution-focused Therapy

Strength-based Work

At the heart of solution-focused therapy is the perspective that clients bring strengths and resources with them to counselling, and that rather than being seen as ‘broken’ clients are viewed as ‘stuck’ – stuck within a problem-saturated focus, stuck within a sense of powerlessness in bringing about change, or stuck within previous attempts to solve a problem that have brought about further challenges. This belief in clients as possessing strengths and resources also links to the idea that the responsibility for change lies with clients, in respecting client autonomy and expert knowledge of their life and circumstances. Through exploring ideal futures and past exceptions, possibilities for change are opened up via the lens of past or recent successes and concrete actionable goals and steps towards these.

Pragmatic Perspectives

It is not uncommon to hear solution-focused counsellors refer to the ‘solution-focused triad’ (Berg & Miller, 1992, p. 17):

1. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it;
2. Once you know what works, do more of it;
3. If it doesn’t work then don’t do it again, do something different”.

This triad of principles highlights the inherently pragmatic perspectives of solution-focused counselling – that the counselling work should be simple (the term ‘brief therapy’ speaks not only to a shorter timeframe for the therapeutic work, but also to the expected simplicity of the counselling approach); that the counselling approach should emphasise what can and does work rather than becoming more stuck in what does not work; and that a key element of the approach should be the encouragement of the client in taking proactive steps towards change.

Alongside this pragmatic approach to change is the perspective that, generally speaking, a thorough understanding of the history of the client and the presenting problem is less helpful aside from an exploration of past exceptions and successes. While some more recent solution-focused models place stronger acknowledgement on the role of context in understanding presenting concerns, the underlying principle behind this perspective links back to the focus on exploring solution or possibility thinking rather than problem thinking.

Goal Setting

The solution-focused approach places great emphasis on the importance of setting clear and concrete goals from early in the counselling process. This is particularly encouraged to be framed through a positive lens (“What will be happening instead?” as opposed to “What won’t be happening anymore?”), defined in such a way as to be concrete, behavioural and measurable as well as realistic (De Jong & Berg, 1998), and often explored in relational terms (“Who will notice something different? What would they observe?”). In line with the earlier principle of “doing something different”, another consideration within goal setting is to begin with small achievable changes on the path to broader goals of change – that change can ‘beget change’, and that taking small steps towards doing something different creates movement out of ‘stuckness’ and problem-focused thinking. It is important to note that the responsibility for setting goals remains with the client, as the solution-focused approach emphasises the importance of client autonomy and responsibility for change (indeed a common misunderstanding of solution-focused therapy – is thinking that the counsellor is responsible for coming up with and suggesting ‘solutions’).

Readiness for Change

In his 1988 work “Clues,” de Shazer introduced three distinct types of client-practitioner relationships that emerge from the start of therapeutic work: visitor, complainant, and customer. These terms were intended to characterize the nature of the relationship between client and practitioner, rather than to describe motivation or ‘readiness’ for therapy. However, some have critiqued the choice of language for focusing on the individual rather than the relationship itself (Ziegler, 2010; Isebaert, 2016). In a more recent review of these concepts, Ziegler (2010) suggested alternative terms — ‘visitor/host, complainant/sympathizer, and customer/consultant’ — to better capture the interactive nature of these relationships. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this discussion, the original terms will be used to accurately reflect the ideas of the original authors. These levels of therapeutic engagement can be understood as follows (Ellwood, 2024):

• Visitor relationship – has the client identified a concern or requested help? Often seen where counselling has been mandated or coerced.
• Complainant relationship – has the client indicated a desire to make changes within themselves or is the problem viewed as external to themselves or outside of their control? Often seen where the client directly or indirectly implies that responsibility for change lies with someone or something outside of themselves, or with the counsellor.
• Customer relationship – has the client identified a clear and workable concern as well as a desire to take active steps towards resolving this? Often viewed as the point where real therapy begins.

Transtheoretical Model of Change

Doing the Right Thing at the Right Time

A fundamental principle of the transtheoretical model of change is that ‘stuckness’ in change is more likely to be the result of attempting to utilise change processes that do not match the current stage of change. This reflects the earlier studies conducted by Prochaska and DiClemente exploring what self-changers were doing and not doing in order to successfully create change on their own, particularly in hearing what change processes they naturally adopted during different stages of their change journey. An example of this is clients attempting to apply early stage processes, such as self-re-evaluation or consciousness raising, while moving into action stages of change – or the opposite, in attempting to apply action processes without first having developed awareness and readiness. This then indicates an importance of first assessing current level of change – and clearly matching processes to this. The transtheoretical model of change also acknowledges that movement through the different levels may not always occur in a linear fashion, but rather move back and forth at different times within the context of the client’s circumstances.

Motivational Interviewing

Four Basic Principles

Miller and Rollnick (2002) suggest four basic principles that underlie the motivational interviewing approach, which then clearly translate into clinical and practical strategies with clients. These are also at times referred to as “engaging, focusing, evoking and planning” (Miller & Rollnick, 2023).

1. Express Empathy

Empathy involves the ability to understand the world from the perspective of another, without judgement or criticism. While empathy does not mean agreement or disagreement with beliefs, feelings or behaviours, it does allow for greater comprehension as to what sits behind these for clients. Only through developing an empathic understanding of clients’ worldviews and perspectives that are linked to their concerns can we start to distinguish between reasons for wanting change and not wanting change.

2. Develop Discrepancy

Motivational interviewing suggests that discrepancies between a client’s behaviours and their underlying values are what contribute to motivation. Once awareness of these discrepancies becomes more explicit, there is greater opportunity for an increase in motivation to occur. In motivational interviewing, the counsellor is actively listening for explicit and implicit identification of reasons for not changing and reasons for changing, particularly through identification of important underlying values that may conflict with present behaviours.

3. Roll with Resistance

With the view that “resistance” to change can be better translated as “ambivalence”, as well as being a normal part of a change process, this ambivalence can be used as a window into the hopes, fears, desires and concerns of the client. Meeting such ambivalence with empathy, understanding and validation allows for a more open discussion of potential outcomes of change (those viewed as both positive and negative) and greater autonomy for the client in coming to their own conscious decisions around change, rather than the counsellor attempting to ‘force’ this upon the client (think about the ‘unstoppable force meeting the immovable object’ analogy!).

4. Support Self-efficacy

As a vital over-arching principle and belief of motivational interviewing, the counsellor views that the client is ultimately capable of making changes once they have desired to do so, including that they possess the strength, knowledge and resources to take these steps. The role of the counsellor particularly comes into play when there is uncertainty about the decision to change (or not change), in which the counsellor acts as a guide or consultant to the client, still viewing the client as ultimately capable and responsible within themselves.

Implications for Practice

Solution-focused Therapy

Seeking Exceptions

Clients usually present to counselling with explanations of the presenting problem in considerable detail, such as when, where and how the problem is experienced, how long it has been occurring for, who else is involved (or sometimes perceived to be at fault), and the experience of the problem including resulting feelings. Exceptions can be defined as the past experiences in which the problem might have been reasonable expected to occur but has not (de Shazer, 1985). Exceptions may be absolute (the problem has not occurred) or they may be a matter of degrees (the problem has occurred but to a lesser extent). The solution-focused perspective would suggest that while initial descriptions of the problem are useful in both describing the preliminary perspective on what is or is not happening from the client’s perspective, as well as allowing an opportunity for the client to express and vent their feelings and struggles in relation to the problem – generally such descriptions would be seen as less helpful in building solutions (De Jong & Berg, 1998). As with many solution-focused questions, exceptions can be sought in a number of different ways. This can include where exceptions are located in time (recent exceptions, historic exceptions, and what the context around these have been), whether exceptions occurred randomly or as a result of deliberate attempts or action, and as noted earlier whether exceptions are experienced as absolutes or in degrees of difference. Another distinction between some solution-focused counsellors (such as more traditional solution-focused practitioners versus solution-oriented possibility counselling described earlier) is the difference in how exception questions are posed – while some may ask “Has there been a time when X has not occurred”, a solution-oriented possibility approach may instead ask “Tell me about a time when X has not occurred”, inferring that the possibility of such an exception is not an if  but a assumed certainty.

Seeking exceptions can be seen as a fundamental building block for generating solutions, as a shift away from problem-saturated thinking and into generating possibilities for change, as well as opportunities for developing hope and identifying existing strengths and resources that the client possesses. Exceptions also highlight current and past successes in relation to the client’s goals (De Jong & Miller, 1995).

Miracle Question

One of the more well-known solution-focused strategies is that of the Miracle Question (De Jong & Berg, 1998). Often use as an early exploration, the question is intended to help guide clients towards new possibilities and away from a problem-saturated description of their world. With guidance from the counsellor, the client is assisted to describe in positive terms what a ‘preferred future’ might look like (George et al.,  1999). This description can then lead into more concrete goal setting, including exploration of any changes that might be more immediately actionable by the client, including ‘acting as if’ elements of the desired future were already true. While the precise wording of the scenario and question can vary according to counsellor preference, the question is best posed slowly and deliberately, allowing the client to purposefully imagine and think about the possibilities.

Scaling

Scaling questions are often used within solution-focused work to assist with making complex and subjective aspects of clients’ experiences more concrete and measurable, such as change before the session, feelings about their problem, desire to make changes and evaluation of progress (Berg, 1994). An important distinction from other psychological assessment tools is that scaling questions within a solution-focused perspective are intended as discussion points rather than formal tools – while scaling questions and responses would still be concrete and measurable [for example, 3 out of 10] – these are explored through conversation rather than formal paper-based tools. In particular, scaling questions are valuable as opening forays into designing more concrete goals and avenues for change, similar to the Miracle Question. For example:

As with many solution-focused questions and areas of discussion, the intention is to build on initial responses and explore more deeply and concretely, searching for initial steps, exceptions to the problem, and hidden or forgotten client resources and strengths.

Transtheoretical Model of Change

Change Processes

The transtheoretical model – by its very nature as a transtheoretical approach – considers strategies and processes from different therapeutic models as being relevant and appropriate at different stages of the change process. It particularly highlights ten change processes that have been identified through early change research (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982; Prochaska et al., 1988) as being of significance, which can be separated into cognitive processes and behavioural processes.

Cognitive processes include: consciousness-raising; dramatic relief; environmental re-evaluation; social liberation; and self-re-evaluation.

Behaviour processes include: self-liberation; counter-conditioning; stimulus control; reinforcement management; and helping relationships.

The different change processes are seen to be linked to the stage of change themselves, as identified earlier, with cognitive processes being seen as more helpful and more utilised within the earlier stages of change (pre-contemplation, contemplation and preparation), and behaviour processes being more useful within later stages of change (action and maintenance).

Motivational Interviewing

Accurate Empathy

Many of the practical skills involved with motivational interviewing can be seen as directly drawn from Rogers’ Person-Centred Therapy, including the use of open-ended questions, reflecting and summarising, affirming, and communicating accurate empathy. Miller and Rollnick suggest that reflective listening is perhaps the most crucial skill of motivational interviewing, in order to gain a more accurate sense of the clients truly mean. They also suggest differing levels of reflecting that may help access progressively deeper levels of empathic understanding, starting with simply repeating some element of what the speaker has said, rephrasing with minor synonyms or additions, paraphrasing to attempt an inference at a deeper meaning or theme to what the speaker has stated, and reflecting feelings through an empathic understanding of what the client may be experiencing. The development and communication of accurate empathy is not intended as specific stand-alone strategies, but rather the crucial underpinning micro-skills across all stages of working with clients, from initial conversations around ambivalence around change to eliciting and affirming change talk to development action readiness and planning.

Eliciting Change Talk

Building further on the person-centred ideas of developing and communicating accurate empathy, motivational interviewing specifically aims to then target client language that centres around change. Rather than potentially becoming stuck in an endless loop of reflecting and validating, the counsellor aims to ask open questions particularly targeted at exploring themes such as desire to change (“I wish I could …”, “I want to …”), perceived ability (“I think I could …”, “I am able to …”), reasons for change (“If I don’t … then I’ll never be able to …”, “I’d be able to … if I did”) and need for change (“I have to …”, “I really must …”). These types of change talk are often referred to as preparatory change talk. It is important to note that this is not asking the counsellor to become a proponent of change, but rather helping the client begin to develop their own change talk through skilful questioning.

Additionally, through these conversations the counsellor will likely also be attuning to language that highlights reasons not to change, often referred to as ‘sustain talk’. It is seen as normal, particularly within feelings of ambivalence, for the client to be expressing both change and sustain talk simultaneously. At other times, change talk might be seen as sitting just below the surface of sustain talk. This requires a level of double listening on the part of the counsellor – being aware of what is being said but also what is not quite being said. Once there is a sense that the language being used by the client is becoming more concrete in communicating a motivation towards change, the focus of the discussion would likely then shift onto talk centred around commitment and action steps (also referred to as mobilising change talk).

Commitment and Action

The phase of motivational interviewing focusing on commitment and action involves building upon the more explicitly identified motivation to change towards creating a change plan and further strengthening the commitment and readiness for change. It is important to note that even in this later stage of motivational interviewing, it is normal for the client to still experience a sense of oscillation between motivation and ambivalence, and earlier strategies should not be neglected during later parts of the therapy. It is also noted that clients may experience discrepancy between a motivation to change the overall problem versus the motivation to engage in action towards accomplishing this change.

Reflecting the underlying principle of self-efficacy, it is important to explore a change plan that primarily comes from the client, rather than offered by the counsellor. This often involves conversation and questions such as “How do you think you might make that happen? What might be some steps that are actionable towards this goal?”. In the same vein as exploring preparatory change talk, the counsellor would be listening for and evoking commitment language (“I will …”) or activation language (“I am willing to …”, “I am considering …”) that is not quite concrete commitment but a clear leaning towards action nonetheless. There may also be language identified that signifies steps already taken towards change (“I have made several phone calls”, “I started doing X yesterday”). Sometimes during the action planning stage the client may express uncertainty or confusion around appropriate steps to take. At this point the counsellor may offer tentative suggestions in the role of a consultant or guide, such as suggestions of what other clients have found useful or the offer of some particular steps or options from other therapeutic approaches. The key here is that the choice for taking these up or not remains with the client – the counsellor is communicating a respect and a belief that the client is able to choose what they need while also being ready and able to provide appropriate guidance to facilitate that choice.

Resistance to Change

Is there even such a thing as resistance? In 1984, Steve de Shazer (after 5 years of rejections) published his seminal paper ‘The Death of Resistance’, in which he argued that the prevailing idea of resistance as being located within the client or family is an unhelpful, even clinically dangerous, conceptualisation. Instead, he argued, this idea of ‘resistance to change’ would be better understood as a therapist-client dynamic – one that exists within the system of client/family and therapist collectively – and that an alternate frame of clients using ‘a unique way of attempting to cooperate’ allows the therapist to be responsible for this relationship, rather than responsibility being placed onto the client/family solely. This distinction is a crucial one for us to consider – where does the responsibility for change lie?

One frame through which this responsibility can be viewed is common across post-modern approaches to counselling such as solution-focused work and narrative therapy. With underlying principles of co-authoring, recognising client strengths/resources and subjective experience, counsellors in this space might often consider themselves more as consultants. This allows clients to be seen as experts within their own lives and experiences, while responsibility for therapeutic processes still sits with the counsellors. As such, clients are responsible for their own change, while counsellors are responsible for creating the context in which change might occur. This also means that counsellors are responsible for maintaining the therapeutic relationship, including responding to difficulties in moving towards change or addressing ruptures in the relationship with the client.

In a similar vein to solution-focused approaches, both the transtheoretical model of change and motivational interviewing suggest a reframing of the idea of ‘resistance’ into an acknowledgement of ‘ambivalence’ about change or holding a different level of motivation for change. More than simple semantics, this re-wording allows for a more empathic and acknowledging approach to clients, particularly in placing responsibility back onto the counsellor to more accurately determine and respond to the level of motivation and readiness the client is at, as well as opening up further possibilities around pathways and opportunities for increasing motivation and preparing for change in different ways. Motivational interviewing particularly acknowledges this through the (unfortunately named) idea of ‘rolling with resistance’, inviting the counsellor to sit together with the client in a space of ambivalence and acknowledge choice of direction, including recognising more openly any concerns about the potential negative implications of moving towards change. Similar to the aforementioned concept of the counsellor creating a context for change while allowing the actual responsibility for change to sit with the client, ‘rolling with resistance’ also allows for a more transparent conversation around reasons for changing and reasons for not changing and leaves the decision sitting with the client about which direction they ultimately wish to choose.