Motivational Interviewing OARS Model: Skills and Example
Nour
Founder, Coachful
Motivational Interviewing OARS Model: Skills and Example
The motivational interviewing OARS model summarizes four communication skills: open questions, affirmations, reflections and summaries. They help a practitioner understand a person’s perspective and support their own reasons for a chosen change.
Motivational interviewing, developed by William Miller and Stephen Rollnick, is more than a set of questions. Its collaborative approach respects autonomy, including the choice not to change. In coaching, use the skills within your training and role, agree the focus and make room for the client’s genuine concerns.
Coachful is our #1 recommendation for keeping the client’s chosen coaching focus, preparation and agreed next action connected. Record their concerns as faithfully as their reasons for change. The workspace does not certify MI competence or decide what the client should want.
Put the skills inside a collaborative conversation
Start by understanding the person and agreeing what the conversation is about. If an employer wants a behavior change, clarify that context openly. A coach should not quietly use listening skills to steer the client toward an outcome they have not chosen.
The Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers’ public summary describes four processes: engaging, focusing, evoking and planning. They concern the relationship, shared direction, the person’s reasons and possible next steps. Planning is appropriate when the client is ready; the conversation may return to earlier work.
Miller and Rollnick’s fourth edition, Helping People Change and Grow, was published in 2023 and describes these as four tasks. Its publisher includes coaching among the application contexts. The public MINT summary still references the earlier third edition; do not mistake that older reference for the latest book. Its broad applications do not remove the need for appropriate training, feedback and professional scope.
Use the skills to respond to the person in front of you. The active-listening guide develops attention and checking understanding, which make an OARS conversation useful.
1. Open questions: invite the client’s account
An open question gives the client room to explain rather than select yes or no. An original example is: “What would you like to be different about how you prepare for the weekly meeting?”
Follow the answer. If the client says preparation is not the problem, ask what is. Avoid packing several questions into one turn or asking a leading question that contains the desired conclusion.
Closed questions also have useful roles. “Is Thursday the agreed deadline?” can check a fact. “Would you like to discuss that now?” can check permission. The skill is choosing a question for its purpose, not banning a grammatical form.
When sharing information, ask permission where appropriate, offer a relevant amount and invite the client’s response. Listening and information exchange can work together.
2. Affirmations: acknowledge something specific and real
An affirmation recognizes a strength, effort, value or contribution the client has shown. “You checked the workload before making a promise” identifies an actual action. It is different from broad praise such as “You are amazing.”
Use language that fits the client and the relationship. The point is to show that you noticed something meaningful, not reward them for agreeing with you. A client can make a thoughtful decision to pause or decline.
Ground the statement in evidence. If the person says they made a difficult support request, you can acknowledge the care they put into explaining the need. You do not need to infer an exceptional personality trait from one event.
Leave room for correction. If the client says the affirmation does not fit, listen. A skillful response follows their experience rather than insisting they accept praise.
3. Reflections: offer an understanding the client can correct
A reflection restates or develops what you understand from the client’s words. A simple reflection might be: “You want more preparation time.” A more complex one might be: “You want to contribute clearly, and the current process leaves you unsure what decision is needed.”
Treat the reflection as a tentative understanding. The client may clarify or disagree. Avoid presenting a guessed hidden fear as a discovery or turning every statement into an interpretation about childhood or identity.
When the client has mixed feelings, reflect both relevant sides accurately. “You want to reduce last-minute work, and you are concerned that a rigid process could miss urgent needs.” That keeps the real trade-off available for discussion.
Practice quality rather than obeying a universal reflection-to-question ratio. Pauses, tone, context and the client’s response matter. A long sequence of polished reflections can still miss what the person is trying to say.
4. Summaries: check the picture before moving on
A summary gathers relevant points and invites correction. It can mark a transition from understanding the issue to considering a plan.
Include the client’s reasons, concerns, resources and choices. A summary should not omit a material downside merely because it would make the proposed change more persuasive.
An original example is: “You want a shorter preparation routine, you still need accurate figures and you are considering asking for the brief earlier. What have I missed?” The final question makes room for an important addition.
Ask what the client wants next. They may choose a plan, request information or continue exploring. Summarizing does not obligate them to commit.
Listen for change talk without manufacturing it
DARN-CAT is a mnemonic for different kinds of change-related language: desire, ability, reasons, need, commitment, activation and taking steps. Miller’s own discussion distinguishes language toward a change from language favoring the current situation.
Use the distinctions to listen carefully, not score the client’s motivation. The same category can concern maintaining the current arrangement, and a reason for doing so may identify something the plan needs to preserve.
| Type | Original work-related example |
|---|---|
| Desire | I would like preparation to stop taking over the evening. |
| Ability | I could ask for the brief before the meeting day. |
| Reasons | Earlier information would let me check the figures properly. |
| Need | We need a clearer process before the next reporting cycle. |
| Commitment | I will ask the meeting owner about the brief. |
| Activation | I am ready to draft that request. |
| Taking steps | I have already listed the information I need. |
These examples are illustrations, not a script to elicit seven required answers. A client saying “I need flexibility for urgent requests” is offering relevant information. Explore how a change could preserve it rather than dismissing it as an excuse.
A complete OARS coaching dialogue
In this fictional case, client Rae and coach Ellis discuss changing a preparation routine on 6 September 2027. All people, meetings, records and workplace outcomes below are invented. Rae chooses the focus; Ellis is not acting on a hidden instruction to make Rae more productive. The conversation makes the four skills visible while preserving both sides of the decision.
Coach, open question: What would you like to understand about your meeting preparation?
Rae: I want it to take less time, but I cannot send inaccurate figures.
Coach, reflection: You want the routine to be manageable while protecting accuracy.
Rae: Yes. The problem is that I get the brief on the same day.
Coach, open question: What have you already tried?
Rae: I made a list of the information I need. I have not asked the meeting owner for it earlier.
Coach, affirmation: You have identified the information that lets you do the work responsibly.
Rae: I could ask for the brief earlier, but urgent changes still happen.
Coach, reflection: Earlier preparation could help, and the process needs a way to handle genuine changes.
Rae: Exactly. I do not want a rule that says nothing can change.
Coach, summary: You want earlier information, accurate figures and a clear route for urgent changes. You have a list ready. What would you like to do with that?
Rae: Ask the meeting owner whether we can agree the brief timing and how changes are flagged.
The client chooses a specific request. The coach has not forced a commitment by collecting favorable statements and ignoring the concern about urgent changes. Rae’s reason for caution becomes a condition of the proposed plan.
Repair a reflection before turning it into a plan
Ellis initially goes further than Rae’s account supports:
Ellis: You are worried that colleagues will think you cannot cope.
Rae: That is not it. I am responsible for the accuracy of the figures. I do not want an earlier deadline that hides a late correction.
Ellis: I put an explanation on it that you had not given. The concern is retaining a reliable accuracy check when information changes.
Rae: Yes. I want to discuss timing and the change route together, not simply demand an earlier email.
The repair changes what Ellis records. “Fear of looking incapable” is removed from the draft preparation summary. The current summary states the accuracy responsibility and the condition about late changes. Rae reads it and confirms that it represents the concern.
This is a substantive listening result. If Ellis had kept the guessed explanation, a tidy action plan could have solved the wrong problem. Rae’s correction is useful evidence about the conversation, not a sign that the client is resisting the coach’s insight.
Complete the chosen request and negotiate the condition
Rae decides to ask meeting owner Morgan for earlier information and a clear change route. At 09:00 on 7 September, Rae sends the request in the ordinary company channel. The proposed deadline is Tuesday at noon for the Thursday 10:00 Europe/London meeting. Rae includes the required information list and asks who can decide if a later change prevents a reliable check.
Morgan agrees to the brief timing but asks data lead Sal to distinguish substantive changes from presentation corrections. Rae does not report “everyone agreed” at this point. One practical condition remains unresolved, and Sal’s responsibility must be accepted rather than assigned by a coaching task.
At 10:00 on 7 September, Sal defines the distinction with Rae and Morgan. A changed figure, source, period or calculation basis requires the relevant numerical recheck. A spelling or layout correction with unchanged underlying information needs a presentation check. Uncertainty goes back to Sal; Rae is not expected to classify unfamiliar technical changes alone.
Sal accepts the agreed checking role within the current work allocation. Morgan accepts responsibility for changing the meeting’s decision agenda when the required check cannot be completed. They write the arrangement into the company’s current meeting brief. It does not guarantee that every urgent request can be accommodated on the original date.
By 10:30, Rae reads the full arrangement, checks that it includes the accuracy condition and confirms it to Morgan and Sal. The actual workplace agreement is now more specific than the initial request. Coaching has helped Rae formulate the request, but Ellis has not supplied Morgan’s authority or Sal’s availability.
Keep four actual trials, including the week that does not fit
Rae and the two colleagues use the arrangement for four Thursday meetings. The following is their completed fictional record. The earlier Tuesday delivery time and a usable numerical decision are distinct observations.
| Meeting | Brief and subsequent change | What actually happens |
|---|---|---|
| 9 September | Brief arrives 7 September at 11:40; no substantive change is reported. | Rae completes the required preparation. The numerical discussion proceeds using the checked information. |
| 16 September | Brief arrives 14 September at 11:50. A spelling correction arrives on 15 September. | Sal confirms the underlying information is unchanged. Rae checks the corrected presentation, and the discussion proceeds. |
| 23 September | Brief arrives 21 September at 11:55. A changed figure is flagged on 22 September at 15:10. | Sal cannot complete the necessary recheck within the remaining accepted allocation. Morgan postpones that numerical decision; the meeting does not rely on the unchecked replacement. |
| 30 September | Brief arrives 28 September at 11:40, including the revised information for the deferred matter. | Sal completes the relevant check on 29 September. Rae prepares the current brief and the deferred matter is discussed at the meeting. |
The four briefs met the selected Tuesday-noon timing. That is four of four deliveries against that narrow measure. It is not four weeks with every proposed decision ready: one substantive change could not be checked in time. The third week shows the agreed exception being used, including a real delay.
The correction in the second week is not counted as a numerical error. The changed figure in the third is not treated as mere formatting to preserve a positive result. The fourth week’s completed check does not retroactively make the 23 September decision ready.
Rae keeps only the agreed coaching summary of these events, without uploading the employer’s figures or company brief. Ellis has not independently audited the company’s records. The account is selected client-reported information within the fictional coaching case, not a controlled evaluation of MI or a verified claim of improved business accuracy.
Use the review to support a choice, not a favorable headline
At the 4 October coaching review, Rae says the new arrangement worked every week. Ellis asks what “worked” means in that statement, then reflects the distinction Rae identifies: the earlier briefs arrived each week, while the arrangement also exposed a week in which the intended decision had to wait.
Rae corrects the written account: “Four briefs arrived by the agreed deadline. One late numerical change could not be checked in time, so Morgan deferred that decision. It was checked for the following meeting.” Rae keeps the concern about urgent changes in the record rather than deleting it now that the delivery count looks favorable.
Ellis acknowledges Rae’s concrete contribution: Rae stated the needed information and asked for the exception route instead of promising to absorb every late change. The affirmation concerns an observed request and follow-through. It does not certify Rae as a perfect delegator or reward a commitment Ellis preferred.
Rae chooses to retain the arrangement for now and review it with Morgan if the service demands change. The next choice is not an obligation to make the deadline stricter, buy more coaching or collect a longer record. Ellis sends the full current coaching summary, including the initial reflection correction and the deferred decision. Rae reads it and acknowledges that it is accurate.
The complete example shows all four skills serving a chosen purpose: an open account, specific recognition, a reflection that can be corrected and a summary that retains the trade-off. A real workplace request and accepted condition follow, with a later review that preserves an inconvenient result. Completing OARS did not remove uncertainty or create control over other people.
An original listening and planning record
Rae’s completed record below is an original coaching aid, not a validated MI fidelity score or a substitute for the organization’s own operational records.
| Field | Completed 4 October record |
|---|---|
| Agreed focus | Manage meeting preparation while retaining an appropriate accuracy check. |
| Client’s reason | Earlier information allows preparation without silently relying on unchecked changes. |
| Concern retained | Genuine late changes still need classification and a feasible checking route. |
| Corrected understanding | Accuracy responsibility, not the coach’s guessed fear of looking incapable. |
| Action completed | Rae sent the timing and exception request on 7 September. |
| Actual agreement | Morgan owns the brief timing and agenda decision; Sal accepts the substantive-check role; uncertainty returns to Sal. |
| Observed account | Four timely briefs; one late numerical change led to a deferred decision, checked for the following week. |
| Next choice | Retain the arrangement for now, revisiting it if actual demands change. |
| Audience | Selected summary for Rae and Ellis; no employer figures or private company brief supplied. |
Use the motivational-interviewing questions guide for further original examples. A question list supplements practice and supervision; it does not replace them.
Practice one skill at a time
Choose a low-stakes practice conversation with appropriate consent. You might focus on making a reflection that the other person can correct, or on summarizing both the desired change and a concern.
Afterward, ask what was accurate, what was missed and whether the person felt able to choose. The ICF Code of Ethics makes the service agreement, information exchange and handling of records relevant professional considerations. Explain the actual practice audience and arrangements before collecting material. If using a recording, obtain suitable permission and agree storage, audience and deletion arrangements. A client’s real sensitive material is unnecessary for every practice exercise.
Seek feedback and appropriate training for more complex work. MI used in clinical or high-risk settings requires the relevant competence and professional role. A coach can describe the communication skills they use without claiming treatment qualifications they do not hold.
Review the effect of the conversation, not simply the number of open questions or favorable statements. The useful result may be a clearer focus or an informed decision to wait.
Keep the client’s plan accurate in Coachful
Use a short original worksheet for the client’s reasons, concerns and next choice. Assign it to the intended client and explain who sees submitted answers. Keep the record faithful to mixed feelings rather than saving only statements favoring change.
Create a task only when the client chooses an action. Confirm its wording and date together. At review, ask what happened and what they want next. An unshared journal or takeaway page can remain separate from submitted material. Where enabled, a client may deliberately share an individual page with the coach; that explicit sharing is an exception to its unshared privacy. A private resource link alone does not grant access.
Explore Coachful’s features to organize preparation, resources and chosen actions around an agreed focus.
Sources and further learning
Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers, Understanding Motivational Interviewing; Miller and Rollnick (2023), Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change and Grow, fourth edition; William Miller, Change Talk and Sustain Talk. The dialogue, examples and worksheet here are original and do not reproduce a licensed fidelity measure or clinical protocol.
Frequently asked questions
Is OARS the whole of motivational interviewing?
No. The four skills work within a collaborative approach with a shared direction and attention to the person’s own reasons. Completing a list of questions and reflections does not establish competence or fidelity to MI.
Does change talk prove that the later action happened?
No. A stated intention, a completed request, another person’s agreement and a later result are different evidence. Rae’s plan became a real workplace arrangement only after the relevant people accepted their parts; one decision still had to wait.
Should coaches avoid all closed questions?
No. Closed questions can clarify facts or permission. Use open questions when they help the person describe their experience and options.
Is an affirmation the same as praise?
A useful affirmation notices a specific strength, value or effort. It should not function as a reward for agreeing with the coach.
Must the client make a plan?
No. They may need information, more exploration or an informed decision not to change. Planning should fit readiness and the agreed purpose.
Use OARS to understand the person and support a choice they own. Accurate listening, room for concerns and a useful next question matter more than completing an acronym.
