I had a difficult time with this clinician’s approach/use of MI and at times was unsure what he was trying to do. For example, when bringing up AA, he did so more in the way of an expert, rather than asking permission if he could impart some knowledge. Several times it felt awkward with long silence (and not the kind of comfortable silence which lets people respond to a question or idea that has been raised). I also felt that there were points that the counselor was not sure where to head with the conversation, such as when the client was talking about church and indicated that it was not his favorite thing, and the therapists rection to his laughter was (what I felt to be) quite uncomfortable. I did not feel that there was anything that was specifically that went super well. I think that his approach and use of MI was minimal and rudimentary at best.
If I would have been in this situation, I would have utilized the opening to discuss AA more when the client brought it up originally, rather than when he went into it more in the second video as there were times that the clinician talked over the client. I also feel that there were some missed opportunities of the clinician where the the client seemed to be asking for more info and if the clinician would have utilized that and asked if it was ok if he shared more about it, I feel that it would have been much more productive.
In the role that I have, I supervise a team that meets with clients. I currently utilize MI with both staff as well as when I am meeting with the population that we serve. I find that by having the person that I am meeting with (staff or clients) be the one to set the agenda and then my job is to listen to them and help flush out the information. Most importantly, however, is that I can help them explore their ambivalence in a non judgmental way that in turn helps them open the door even further towards change.