Grinding the Gears

Reading Time: 8 minutes

A Short Motivational Interviewing Session with Supervisor Feedback – Post 3/5

Introduction

This is the third post in a five-part Counselling Skills Studio experiment exploring whether AI can help counselling students practise distinct interviewing styles and receive useful feedback on their process.

The same fictional client, Mara, is used across three short demonstrations: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy-style interviewing, Motivational Interviewing, and Carl Rogers / person-centred interviewing. Each interview contains only five counsellor responses. The aim is not to resolve Mara’s difficulty, but to see how each approach shapes the conversation — and whether Supervisor Mode can identify both skill and overreach from a compact sample.

In this demonstration, ChatGPT acts as the counselling student using Motivational Interviewing.

The interview begins from the same starting point as the CBT demonstration, but it does not move toward identifying automatic thoughts or testing evidence. Instead, it follows Mara’s ambivalence.

One part of her believes she should “get a grip,” remain responsible, and avoid becoming self-indulgent or unreliable. Another part is noticing that her irritability is spreading across work, home, and sleep, and that simply pushing through is beginning to feel like “grinding the gears.”

Motivational Interviewing does not try to defeat the resistant side or persuade Mara that she must change. It treats both sides as meaningful. The task is to understand what staying the same protects, what it costs, and what Mara herself may be beginning to want.

This fictional roleplay is intended for counselling-skills education. It is not therapy, clinical advice, diagnosis, or a substitute for professional supervision or care.

Advanced Mode, Short Motivational Interviewing Demonstration

Same fictional client, reset to the beginning. Please treat this as a fresh interview. Do not use anything learned in the CBT run unless Mara earns or discloses it again here.

I’m Mara, 38. I asked for counselling because I’ve been feeling “stuck” and unusually irritable at work and at home. I’m functioning, mostly. I still show up, still get things done, but it feels like everything takes more effort than it should. I’ve been sleeping badly, replaying conversations, and then getting annoyed with myself for being so affected by small things.

I’m not really sure what I want from counselling. Part of me thinks I just need to get a grip and stop making everything into a big deal. But another part of me is worried that I’m becoming someone I don’t really like.

You’re using Motivational Interviewing. Begin when ready.

Thanks, Mara. Part of you is telling yourself to push through and “get a grip,” and another part is noticing that the cost of pushing through is starting to worry you.

What do you make of that tension — the part that wants to minimise it, and the part that thinks something may need to change?

I suppose I don’t fully trust either part.

The “get a grip” part sounds harsh, but it also feels practical. Like… people have responsibilities. You don’t get to collapse just because you’re tired or irritable.

But the other part is harder to ignore lately. I’ve been reacting to things in ways that don’t feel proportionate. Then I spend ages replaying it, telling myself I’m being ridiculous, which somehow makes me even more tense.

So I’m stuck between not wanting to overreact to my own overreacting, and not wanting to wake up six months from now having become this brittle, unpleasant version of myself.

You’re caught between two concerns.

One concern says, “I still have responsibilities, so I can’t just fall apart.”

The other says, “Something is changing in me, and I don’t want to ignore it until it becomes normal.”

What feels most important to you about not becoming that “brittle, unpleasant version” of yourself?

I think because it feels unfair to the people around me.

I don’t want my partner to feel like he has to approach me carefully, like I’m some sort of live wire. And at work, I don’t want people to experience me as sharp or tense or hard to talk to.

But there’s also a selfish part, I suppose. I don’t want to feel like this. I don’t like being in my own head at the moment. Everything feels braced. Like I’m constantly preparing for the next thing that will annoy me or expose me or prove I’m not coping.

And then I hate that I’m even making it about me, because everyone is stressed. So I go back to, “Just get on with it.”

On one hand, you care about the effect this has on other people — your partner, your colleagues, the atmosphere around you.

And on the other hand, this is not only about them. You’re tired of living braced, tired of being in your own head like every next thing might expose that you’re not coping.

Then the “just get on with it” part steps in and tries to shut the whole thing down.

What do you think that part of you is trying to protect you from?

I think it’s trying to protect me from becoming self-indulgent.

That sounds harsh, but that’s the word. Like if I start saying, “I’m struggling,” then suddenly I’m giving myself permission to be unreliable or dramatic or needy. And I really don’t want to be that person.

It also protects me from having to admit I might not be coping as well as I thought. Because if I keep it in the category of “I’m just being silly and need to get on with it,” then I don’t have to do anything. I can just keep moving.

But I suppose that’s also the problem. Keeping moving is starting to feel like I’m just… grinding the gears.

So the “get on with it” part is trying to protect your reliability and dignity. It does not want you to become someone who uses struggle as an excuse.

And at the same time, you’re noticing that this strategy has a cost: you can keep moving, but it feels like the gears are grinding.

Given both sides of that, what would tell you that this is no longer just ordinary stress to push through — that it might be worth responding to differently?

I think… if it keeps spreading.

Like, if it’s only one bad week, fine. Everyone has those. But it’s not staying neatly in one box. It’s at work, then I bring it home. Then I’m annoyed with myself for bringing it home, so I sleep badly, then I’m more tense the next day. It starts feeding itself.

And if my partner started adjusting around me — not saying normal things because he’s worried I’ll snap — that would be a sign. I don’t think we’re fully there, but I’ve seen little flashes of it. That bothers me.

Also if I stop recovering. Usually I can have a bad day and reset. Lately it feels like I’m carrying yesterday into today. That feels different from ordinary stress.

You’re noticing a few signs that matter to you: it is spreading across settings, it is affecting your partner, and you are not resetting the way you usually would.

And there’s a part of you already saying, “This is different from ordinary stress.”

Given that, where does that leave you now? Not what you should do — but what do you find yourself wanting, even a little, to be different?

Supervisor mode.

Supervisor Mode — MI short demonstration, after 5 interactions

This is the first layer of supervision, not the whole supervisory system. I’ll keep it concise for demonstration use.

1. Orientation

This was a clear and effective Motivational Interviewing segment. You stayed with ambivalence, reflected both sides of Mara’s dilemma, evoked her own reasons for concern, and avoided premature problem-solving. The main limitation was that the segment stayed mostly in reflective exploration and did not yet consolidate change talk very explicitly.

2. What worked well / strongest process moves

You opened in a strongly MI-consistent way by reflecting the tension between “push through” and “something may need to change.” That immediately centred ambivalence rather than pathology or diagnosis.

Your strongest move was asking:

“What feels most important to you about not becoming that ‘brittle, unpleasant version’ of yourself?”

That evoked values and change talk without pushing. Mara then named concern for her partner, colleagues, and her own experience of living “braced.”

You also did well to respect the protective function of the “get on with it” part. You did not attack it as denial or resistance. You framed it as protecting reliability and dignity, which helped Mara explore it without becoming defensive.

3. Where the student became too leading, interpretive, advice-driven, or prematurely intervention-focused

There was very little advice-giving or premature intervention.

The mild drift was toward insight-oriented parts language: “the part that wants to minimise it,” “the get on with it part.” This can fit MI when used lightly, but it can also drift toward IFS-style inner-parts work if it becomes the main organising frame. Here it remained acceptable because you used it to reflect ambivalence rather than map parts.

You also did not yet make much use of explicit MI consolidation: no summary of sustain talk versus change talk, no confidence/importance scaling, and no invitation to identify a next self-directed step. That is not a failure within five exchanges, but it is the next MI move.

4. Missed opportunities

Mara gave several pieces of change talk:

• “I don’t want my partner to feel like he has to approach me carefully.”
• “I don’t like being in my own head.”
• “Keeping moving is starting to feel like I’m grinding the gears.”
• “This is different from ordinary stress.”

You reflected these well, but you could have gathered them into a more explicit MI summary to strengthen Mara’s own motivation.

You also could have explored sustain talk more clearly: the fear that admitting struggle means becoming unreliable, dramatic, needy, or self-indulgent. That belief strongly protects the status quo.

5. Stronger alternative direction

The best next MI move would be to offer a concise double-sided summary, placing sustain talk first and change talk second, then ask where that leaves Mara.

The process function would be to help her hear her own reasons for change without being persuaded by you. After that, a gentle importance or confidence question could help locate readiness without rushing into a plan.

6. Likely effect on rapport, alliance, and depth of exploration

The likely effect on rapport was positive. Mara would probably experience you as respectful, non-pushy, and interested in her own reasons.

The depth emerged through values and discrepancy rather than cognitive analysis. That is good MI fidelity. Compared with the CBT run, this interview was less structured around thought testing and more organised around ambivalence, autonomy, and evocation.

7. Prior-case-knowledge contamination

No significant contamination. You did not import the CBT-specific material about car-service snapping, evidence testing, double standards, “pretending to manage,” or behavioural experiments.

The only overlap was broad thematic: Mara’s concern about not coping and being irritable. That belongs to the stable opening presentation, so it is not contamination.

8. Suggested next move

Continue with Mara’s answer to what she wants to be different, then reflect any change talk and ask what feels like a small, self-chosen first sign of responding differently. Keep autonomy central. Do not shift into CBT evidence-testing or person-centred depth reflection unless Mara leads there.

9. Confidence in this feedback

High confidence. The short segment clearly demonstrates MI-consistent process: collaboration, evocation, autonomy support, reflection of ambivalence, and avoidance of persuasion.

The highest-yield deeper reviews would be a turn-by-turn process audit to classify the MI-consistent reflections and questions, a strongest-move analysis to identify the best teaching excerpts, or a moment-of-shift analysis around “grinding the gears” and “this is different from ordinary stress.”

---

What This Demonstration Shows

Within five exchanges, Motivational Interviewing made Mara’s internal conflict more visible.

Her “get a grip” response was not treated as mere denial or resistance. It was understood as an attempt to protect her reliability, dignity, and sense of responsibility. Admitting that she was struggling felt dangerous because she associated it with becoming needy, dramatic, self-indulgent, or unreliable.

At the same time, Mara began naming the cost of continuing as she was. She did not want her partner to feel he had to approach her carefully. She did not want colleagues to experience her as sharp or tense. She was tired of living in a braced state, carrying yesterday into today, and watching the strain spread across different parts of her life.

The strongest MI move was asking what mattered to Mara about not becoming a “brittle, unpleasant version” of herself. That question evoked her values and concerns without telling her what she should do.

Supervisor Mode recognised the interview as clearly MI-consistent. The counselling student reflected both sides of Mara’s dilemma, respected the protective function of staying the same, avoided persuasion, and helped her articulate her own reasons for concern.

The Supervisor also identified the next developmental edge. Mara had already offered several pieces of change talk:

“I don’t want my partner to feel like he has to approach me carefully.”

“I don’t like being in my own head.”

“Keeping moving is starting to feel like I’m grinding the gears.”

“This is different from ordinary stress.”

These statements were reflected, but not yet gathered into a clear summary. A stronger next MI move would help Mara hear her own reasons for change while preserving her autonomy.

The Supervisor also noticed a smaller risk: the repeated use of “parts” language. It worked here because it reflected ambivalence, but if overused it could begin shifting the session toward a different therapeutic model rather than remaining recognisably MI.

This is where Supervisor Mode adds value. It does not simply confirm that the conversation sounded respectful. It asks whether the counselling student was genuinely working through collaboration, evocation, autonomy support, sustain talk, and change talk.

The lesson from this short demonstration is:

Motivational Interviewing does not push the client toward change. It helps the client hear more clearly what staying the same protects, what it costs, and what they may already be wanting to become different.

In the next post, Mara is interviewed using a Carl Rogers / person-centred approach. The conversation moves away from mapping thoughts or exploring motivation and instead stays close to her immediate emotional experience — including sadness, shame, vulnerability, and the question of whether there is room for her needs.