Using the Transtheoretical Model in Leadership and Executive Coaching (Part 1/6)

In this six-part series, we will explore the Transtheoretical Model in coaching

In this 6-part abridged series, I explore the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) for behavioral change and examine its relevance in leadership and executive coaching.  Though originally based on addiction recovery research, the model is fundamental and applies to an array of individual behavioral change efforts.  To facilitate the use of this model in executive coaching, I will provide a brief characterization of each of the six stages from an executive coaching perspective.  Throughout I will share examples drawing from past experiences with clients. (I have altered biographical and professional details to protect the confidentiality of my clients.  In some cases, I combine multiple different experiences into one example.) 

Article Structure

To facilitate understanding, I follow the same format when presenting each stage of the Transtheoretical Model.  I begin with an overview defining the characteristics associated with the relevant stage.  Then, I describe the kind of discourse that typically occurs between the coach and client.  I provide a list of potential indicators signaling a client’s presence in each stage.  Following this, I discuss strategies for facilitating the client’s development and include a sample list of narrative inducing questions which can help the coach and client explore.  Finally, I provide examples of working with a client in the relevant stage drawing from real world experiences.  

Due to the complexity of the content, I segmented this article into six-parts in an abridged format to make the information more accessible.  Those interested in the complete unabridged article, will find it freely available for download on our website on March 21, 2022: www.palladianec.com. And on our company’s LinkedIn page. 

A Word About Models

I think of models as useful frameworks that advance our awareness and understanding of complex subjects.  Models exist for many of the issues we encounter when working with our clients like decision making, leadership development, change, and more.  These frameworks can help us select the most appropriate techniques and approaches to use with our clients based on their needs.  As professionals, it is important you focus on the models you feel are most relevant to the type of work you do as a coach and use them in ways that are consistent and genuine to your style of coaching.  What works for one coach or one client, may not work for others.  Therefore, it is important to spend time learning about a model or framework before incorporating it into practice.

A Word About Change

It is important to note that as coaches, we play a vital role in our clients’ relationship to change.  In retrospect, we can help them explore their past experiences with change.  We can facilitate meaningful reflection enabling them to understand the variables that led to change, and we can help them comprehend how change affected them.  In preparation, we can assist clients contemplating the need for change.  We can help them explore the kinds of changes which might be relevant and aid them in developing strategies for engaging in meaningful and lasting change. 

In my quest to learn about individual change I came upon many insightful theories and models, developed by researchers like Richard Boyatzis, Leon Festinger, David Gleicher, Kurt Lewin, and Daniel Kahneman.  These frameworks advanced my understanding of what my clients were going through. They offered road maps for how I could best help them.  Many of these models are highly useful in our work as coaches, however, I do not advocate for or against any one model over another.  I believe it is the individual coach’s responsibility to discover what works best for them and their client.  That said, I chose to focus on the Transtheoretical Model because I found it highly useful in my coaching practice and it is one of the lesser-known frameworks in the realm of executive and leadership coaching.  I hope you find this model as useful as I have.

Transtheoretical Model Overview

The Transtheoretical Model (TTM), first developed in the 1970’s by psychologists James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente, is based on research into adult substance addiction.  This framework, still in use today, provides clinicians and therapists with a model for understanding an addict’s path towards engaging in meaningful behavioral change (i.e., recovery).  Though not originally designed with executive coaching in mind, the concept of TTM is fundamental to wide array of individual change.  To be clear, I am not saying that a senior executive’s experience adopting change is the same as the addict’s efforts towards recovery, I simply mean that the stages in which they process the idea of change and move towards behavioral change are procedurally similar.  In other words, the stages of progression are comparable.  Through this article, I will endeavor to create an analog to demonstrate this.  

The Transtheoretical Model identifies 6 stages representing where a person is on their journey towards engaging in effective and lasting behavioral change.  As a coach, recognizing what stage your client is at enables you to tailor your approach to provide them a service that is meaningful.  The 6 stages are:

1. Pre-Contemplation: the client is not considering change.

2. Contemplation: the client is considering change.

3. Preparation: the client is preparing for change.

4. Action: the client is actively engaged in efforts to change.

5. Maintenance: the client is applying principles/actions to reinforce change and prevent regression.

6. Regress: the client reverts to their old pattern of behavior and must take action to correct the problem.

A few important points to remember about the TTM:

• The amount of time a client spends in any one stage varies. 

• Clients who perceive change as a threat to their values or identity will move slower.

• The model is non-linear.

• The most important stage in TTM is the one the client is in!

Using the TTM

Using the TTM is straight forward, though it can be tempting for coaches to turn a client’s advancement across stages into a goal for coaching, something I caution against.  On this point I offer some wisdom from my time in Georgetown University’s Leadership Coaching Program, meaningful growth happens vertically and horizontally.  In this context, vertical growth consists of the client moving from one stage to the next whereas horizontal growth is the client’s development within a stage.  When using TTM, I focus on a client’s horizontal growth because I believe doing so is the foundation for meaningful vertical growth.  A client’s transition to the next stage is not the goal, ensuring they get the most from their present stage is. 

It can be tempting to coach for change, to assume that our presence with a client is proof that change is necessary.  It is for the client to decide if, when, and how change takes place.  For this article, I define change as a deliberate choice the client makes based on a combination of logic, reason, and perspective.  Success with this model is not just the adoption of change but whether the client has rationally considered the reasons for change and decided for/against change based on this thought process.  Where meaningful behavioral change is concerned, how the client achieves change is as important as the change itself.  The way clients reach their goal will play a significant role in whether that change sticks.

Stage 1 (Pre-Contemplation)

Stage 1, also known as Pre-Contemplation, is the stage where individuals have not or are not considering the idea of change and as such, they are typically not ready to adopt change. I want to make an important distinction here, Stage 1 means the client is not ready for change, it does not mean they are not ready for coaching.  Some clients in Stage 1 can be resistant or even hostile to change and sometimes this can lead to a perception that the client is not ready for coaching.  Reaching a resistant Stage 1 client requires careful planning, consideration, and patience.  Difficult, yes; impossible, no.

Exploring Stage 1: Stage 1 typically involves helping the client develop an understanding of how they see the world, their place in it, and their relationships; a process known as sensemaking or action logic. Exploration within this domain includes an honest examination of the client’s status quo, their perceptions, beliefs, and values.  Stage 1 can reveal hidden conflicts between the client’s perceptions of the world, and the world as it is.  By using techniques to facilitate the client’s ability to view their world from different perspectives, Stage 1 can slowly lift the veil on these conflicts.  This process can also increase the client’s receptivity to the idea of change (Stage 2) because these new insights invariably lead the client to see their status quo through different lenses. 

When working with Stage 1 clients, it is important to understand the client’s reasons for being in Stage 1.  These reasons may vary from client to client and include knowledge-based reasons (what the client knows), emotional reasons (how the client feels) and psychological reasons (how the client thinks).  These reasons may also involve some form of bias.  Understanding the underlying cause of why a client has not or is not considering change is helpful to developing a coaching strategy that resonates for the client.  The following are some of the more frequent reasons for Stage 1 that I have encountered with my clients.  This is not an all-inclusive list, merely a selection of examples based on my experiences. 

One of the most common reasons I see for Stage 1 is the client being genuinely unaware that a problem exists.  This is a knowledge-based explanation that typically results from the client being uninformed, underinformed, or misinformed.  My former client, Jim, exemplifies this.

At the time I began working with Jim, he was 25 years into his professional career, the last ten of which he spent in senior-leadership (one step below the executive level).  Due to his position, Jim was heavily involved in networking both internal and external to the organization.  He would often wander around the organization’s headquarters to “check-in” with people across sections and departments.  He felt the knowledge and the relationships he established through this effort allowed him to facilitate his department’s ability to get things done.  After ten years in upper-management, Jim was ready for a change of pace, so he stepped down from his senior level position to a front-line managers position.  This transition relocated him to a different office where he found himself in charge of a unit tasked with a new aspect of the mission.  The role was new and as such there were many unknowns for him, which he filled with assumptions.  Unfortunately, rather than treat these assumptions accordingly, Jim acted on them as if they were facts.  The result, Jim continued to lead in the same way he had for the last ten years, having assumed what worked then would work now.

Jim continued to network; this took him out of the office on a regular basis.  After the first year, when his first 360 assessment results came out, he was surprised to see that his direct reports criticized him for “lack of leadership” and “lack of support.”  The common observation from his direct reports, “he is never in the office when we need him.”  Jim found this feedback surprising.  From his perspective, he believed the time he spent out of the office networking was in the best interest of his people and he assumed his people would appreciate the fact he trusted them enough to give them space.  Through our conversations, it became clear that as Jim reflected on the experience, he did so only from his perspective, never having considered how others might perceive his behavior.  This mindset is indicative of Stage 1.  Jim’s intentions were not malicious he was simply unaware.  

Jim and I spent time exploring the difference between his perceptions and the perceptions of others surrounding his behavior.  We examined how his initial assumptions about his new role misled him and we discussed ways he could seek additional data to test his assumptions in the future.  Through our Stage 1 discourse, Jim began to realize that the status quo (i.e., the way he behaved when he was a senior leader) had to change to meet his new role.  This realization marked Jim’s transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2.  We will return to Jim’s case in Stage 2.

It is important to note that most clients (generally speaking) who lack awareness are not bad people or even bad leaders; they simply failed to see the signs that their behavior may lead to unintended consequences.  It is also important we make a distinction between someone who is genuinely unaware of the signs that change is necessary (like Jim) and one who chooses to ignore or reject them.  Carol, a former client, exemplifies the person who rejects the signs that change is necessary.

When Carol approached me for help, she was two years into her first leadership position as a front-line manager.  She had less than ten years of professional experience which was unusual for a new supervisor in her organization.  She achieved her position through exceptional performance.  In other words, she was incredibly good at her job and as a reward received a promotion to management.  She approached me because she was having trouble with both her supervisor and her direct reports. 

Convinced her employees were insubordinate and that her boss was out to make her fail, she wanted help navigating the situation with a goal of fixing the problem.  To better support Carol (and with her consent) I spoke with her direct reports, her supervisor, and her peers to get a sense for how people at all levels perceived her.  What I found was a disturbing pattern of behavior on Carol’s part.  I directly observed her berating her people in public, micromanaging their work and their time, and take credit for their work.  Four of her direct reports advised that on at least two occasions she engaged in unprofessional conversation with them (e.g., she openly talked about her romantic life in explicit terms and asked inappropriate questions).  The women who worked for Carol expressed the feeling that she was targeting them.  

Some of Carol’s behaviors push the boundaries of what I consider appropriate topics for me as a coach.  But since Carol self-selected for coaching, I expected her to be receptive to exploring these issues and willing to consider any changes needed to address the issue (a dangerous and incorrect assumption on my part).  I started by working with Carol on sensemaking, getting a sense for how she viewed herself, her role in her organization, her actions and her intentions.  As I listened, two patterns emerged that alarmed me.  The first pattern was her belief that every critical comment against her was the result of a conspiracy aimed at forcing her out of her position.  Over the course of multiple interviews with over a dozen individuals including peers, subordinates, and her leadership; I found no evidence of this.  The second pattern which I observed, she was never wrong, about anything.  

I used several exercises designed to help Carol look at her situation from a 3rd person perspective as well as ones to help her consider her subordinates’ point of view.  Something interesting happened, Carol began to develop a glimmer of awareness regarding how her own behaviors might be generating responses from her people that she subsequently perceived as insubordinate.  For a moment, she acknowledged the potential role her behavior played in her situation but as the idea that she held any of the blame began to set in, Carol abruptly shut down, rejecting the idea she could be responsible in any way.  Carol’s denials came in the form of excuses that involved blaming others for her behavior.  All the indicators were there, those who worked for her, those who worked with her, and those who supervised her provided explicit and detailed information that her behavior was problematic.  When we explored this, she began to spin a web of inconsistent stories that often contradicted each other.  This included her classifying her male antagonists as misogynists and female antagonists as jealous.  She was convinced anyone who disagreed with her or did not praise her was against her.

In a short time, it became clear to me that she began to suspect me of being part of the conspiracy because I did not validate her suspicions.  After only four sessions, and with no explanation, Carol terminated the coaching relationship.  A short time later one of her direct reports quit his job, another filed formal complaint, and a third threatened to quit.  The wide-ranging implications of Carol’s behavior reverberated across the unit and as a result, Carol’s boss reprimanded her for her behavior (twice) and then transferred her to another unit.  I feel obligated to say that the challenges facing Carol are beyond the scope of this article and of traditional leadership coaching.  I want to be clear on this part, I am in no way passing judgement on her.  I use this experience with Carol because she is a powerful example of a client who is in Stage 1 and is unable to transition because she rejects any information which indicates that her behavior is problematic.  

Another reason a client may find themselves in Stage 1, an external force compels change.  Examples of this include benign events like an executive board mandating organizational change, to more catastrophic events like 9/11, natural disasters, and pandemics.  It is important to recognize that change coming from an external source can often leave the client feeling helpless.  Before the client can embrace change, they must find some measure of reconciliation with the driving force for change.  For this reason, I try to spend as much time with a client in Stage 1 as is possible.  This brings me to my long-time client, Layla.

Layla is an entrepreneur who, following the failure of her first business, was on the verge of opening a new business venture.  She originally sought out coaching to enhance her business plan and focus on some of the causes that led to her first business’s failure.  In the beginning, much of our time focused on learning from past experiences, recognizing rational from emotional decisions, developing techniques for self-regulation, and discussing business planning.  5 months into our coaching relationship, the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic hit.  COVID-19 changed the status quo for businesses around the world, including Layla’s.    

Working with less capital than anticipated and unable to generate revenue, Layla’s business collapsed before it even got off the ground.  Compounding matters, the rise of the social justice movement evoked intense feelings for Layla, a woman of color.  The sudden changes in her environment and their emotional consequences hindered her ability to accurately see the new status quo developing around her.  She found herself stuck in Stage 1.  In other words, the overwhelmed entrepreneur could not get to a place of clarity to begin considering how she could adapt.  To help Layla, I changed the focus and frequency of our sessions.  Pre-COVID, we met once every two weeks for one hour and discussed traditional business topics.  In light the pandemic, we increased our sessions to once a week for one and a half hours and our discourse became decidedly more focused on processing how she felt about these changes.  

The reason I use Layla in this example is to underscore the importance of dedicating appropriate time to meet the client where they are and address their needs in that moment.  The focus of our sessions shifted so that, as a coach, I could offer her a safe space to express her feelings about her experiences while helping her remain productive and focused on her goal.  To accomplish this, we first had to process much of her emotional experience.  I worked with Layla to engage in sensemaking, exploring how the world turning upside down had changed her perception of her place in the world.  In time, she came to recognize how her own disorientation and intense feelings about the pandemic became a roadblock to her goals.  From her perspective, there were so many factors working against her.  By taking them one at a time and beginning to unravel the ball of yarn, she started to gain the clarity she wanted so badly.  All of Layla’s work to this point was Stage 1.  We will see more from Layla in Stage 5.

Layla is an example of how clients can have change forced upon them by external forces.  Without proper coaching, Layla would have struggled to grow in Stage 1, potentially preventing her from ever reaching Stage 2.  Layla’s story also exemplifies how important it is to be patient and dedicate time to horizontal exploration in Stage 1.  Without the understanding that comes from Stage 1, a client’s ability to benefit from Stage 2 diminishes.

Another reason for a client’s presence in Stage 1, they possess a preferential bias for the status quo.  This is the belief that the current “state” is perfect, and change is unnecessary.  The issue here is not the need for change, but the presence of a bias that inhibits the client’s ability to make an informed decision regarding the need for change.  A preferential bias obfuscates the client’s ability to recognize indicators supporting the need for change when they present.  

Clients who have a preferential bias for the status quo may sometimes indicate they are in Stage 2 by claiming they already considered the idea of change and determined it was unnecessary.  However, the presence of this type of bias means any such proclamations are suspect.  I have many clients who claimed they considered the idea of change and have even gone so far as to develop a pros and cons list to justify their decision (which is a key indicator of Stage 2).  But upon closer inspection, instead of a methodical and honest exploration of the pros and cons for change, they focused solely on the pros for the status quo.  

In addition to a bias favoring the status quo, there exists a bias opposed to change, often called change aversion.  A person influenced by change aversion is someone with a preconceived and often subconscious prejudice against any change.  The sources of change aversion are many, but I typically see this resulting from a client’s negative experience with past change efforts.  These failures can be real or perceived and can demoralize a client to the point where they believe all change will fail.  I see this a lot with organizations that engage in a continuous never-ending barrage of change efforts.  This sometimes produces a state called change fatigue, whereby clients can no longer endure the constant deluge of change.  It is worth noting, some professionals debate the existence of change fatigue; however, the term remains widely used.  

Stage 1 Indicators: when observing indicators (in any stage), it is imperative that the coach avoid reliance on a single indicator.  Identifying patterns of indicators makes for a more accurate picture.  It is possible a client in Stage 1 may present all, some, or none of these indicators.  Some of the possible signs that may indicate your client is in Stage 1 include:

• Resistance or hostility to change or the idea of change. 

• Resistance to or hostility towards the coach (a perceived agent of change).

• Passive aggressive behavior (e.g., “just tell me what you want me to do”)

• Passionate preference for the status quo (e.g., “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”)

• Persistent and unwavering belief they are not the problem (e.g., “I don’t know why I have to work with you, the problem is someone/something else.”). 

• Feelings of shock (e.g., “I can’t believe this is happening.”)

• Sense of being unprepared (e.g., “how am I supposed to do this.”)

• Genuine unawareness (e.g., “I didn’t realize ____.”)

Stage 1 Strategies: as noted above, not all Stage 1 clients are the same.  Some are open and receptive to the change process, others resistant or even hostile.  Not every coach is going to be comfortable working with every type of Stage 1 client, and that is ok!  As a coach, it is good to know your limits, your preferences, and your comfort level, and it is ok to say, “this is not the type of client I want to work with.”  

For clients influenced by a bias or who possess strong feelings about change, they may benefit from a deeper exploration of how and why they feel the way they do.  Using techniques to help the client consciously understand the way they see the world can empower them to begin pushing back on preconceived notions and allow them to process their experiences in a more meaningful way.  How does a coach achieve this with their client?  Different coaches have different approaches, but for me, I tend to use frameworks that focus on sensemaking.  These are models that help us understand how clients make sense of their world and their place in it.  

Some general considerations when coaching a client in Stage 1 include:

• Working with a client in Stage 1 requires time and patience.  For clients who are simply unaware or are uninformed, Stage 1 can take a month or two to process.  For clients dealing with intense feelings about change or who possess a bias regarding change, Stage 1 can take several months (like Layla). 

• Transparency of intentions from both the client and sponsor are critical to starting the change process the right way.  More than two-thirds of my Stage 1 clients receive coaching because of a mandate, in other words, a senior leader directs the client to get coaching.  When this happens, it is important for the coach and client to know the sponsor’s reasons and expectations before beginning the coaching relationship.

• Careful validation of the client’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs is essential to a robust Stage 1.  It is imperative the coach offer the proper form of validation.  This requires the coach be aware of the boundary between validating how the client feels about something and their perceptions of what led to the issues.  In other words, let the client know it is ok for them to feel the way they do without inferring their perception of the situation is right or wrong.  

• Develop an understanding of how your client sees the world, their place therein, and their relationships.  To accomplish this, I use a variety of sensemaking models with my clients.  These frameworks include the Identity Management Model, Dr. David Rock’s SCARF Model, Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, and Self-Determination Theory among many others.

• Become familiar with models designed to help the client analyze the status quo like the Lateral Thinking Model, Hudson’s Renewal Cycle, and Lewin’s Change Management Model.  These can assist the client as they consider the potential risks associated with a persisting status quo and help them envision a world of possibilities should they consider change.

Stage 1 Questions:

the following are some questions which can foster development within Stage 1.  In this article, I present questions using dry clinical wording.  I do this to ensure the reader understands the intent behind each question.  I highly encourage the reader to adjust the language and style of these questions to better resonate with your client.

• “When you (specify the action or behavior), what is your desired objective?”

• “What would you like to see happen in this situation?”

• “Where do you look for information to tell you if you’re on the right track?”

• “Where do you go to find information to challenge your assumptions?”

• “What are your thoughts and feelings about the idea of change?”

• “On a scale of 1-10, how happy are you with the status quo (be it personal life or professional life)?”

• “What are your core values?”

• “How do you think other people view your core values?”

• “What are (name a person or persons) core values?”

• “In what ways do your core values align with others, or conflict with others?” 

Stage 1 Example:  I have worked with many clients in Pre-Contemplation, among them were individuals facing organizational change.  For them, organizational change represented a perceived threat to their status quo.  Moreover, some of them viewed their selection for coaching as an indictment on their leadership style by their organizations.  This perception, in turn, limited their receptivity to coaching.  In these cases, I spent quite a bit of time listening to them vent their frustrations and feelings while trying to positively validate them where I can.  For this example, I share the story of my former client, Rory.  

Rory was a mid-level manager with over 20 years’ experience leading a large department during a time of significant organizational change.  Rory felt the organization’s change effort was unnecessary and his perception was that the change represented a direct threat to his company’s century old culture.  As the change effort rolled out, he worked to actively undermine the initiative by criticizing the changes to his employees.  

It is important to note that Rory did not volunteer for coaching, his leadership mandated he receive coaching.  Because of this, I can characterize my early sessions with Rory as one of open hostility to change and resistance to me as the coach (a perceived agent of change).  I asked Rory to help me understand his point of view by asking questions free of judgement and criticism.  To overcome Rory’s skepticism, I had to demonstrate active listening, patience, and respect for his story.  As Rory spoke, he became increasingly comfortable with me, realizing that I was not an opponent but someone who genuinely cared to understand his point of view.  This allowed Rory to share even more, providing additional information I could use to influence my coaching strategy.

Once I understood his position, I asked Rory if he ever implemented a decision within his department that his direct reports resisted.  He shared the story of one occasion when he reallocated resources away from one program to another.  He described the visceral way his people reacted and how they seemed to resent him.  Rory quickly pointed out that their reaction was the result of their inability to see the bigger picture.  A picture he had as a department head. He told me that once he explained the reason for the change, his people accepted the change.  As I worked with Rory to compare his example and his current situation, he started to see similarities.

Until now, Rory had not considered the possibility that his leadership may see a bigger picture, one he could not.  The idea that he might be unaware of legitime reasons for his organization’s change unsettled him.  By the time our contractual relationship concluded, Rory had begun to reframe his mindset and he resolved himself to investigate the situation thoroughly first, before drawing a conclusion for or against change.    

When I started working with Rory, he was in Stage 1.  We spent the entire time exploring and developing his perceptions of the status quo and his feelings about changes to that perception, all characteristic of Stage 1 horizontal development.  By the time our relationship ended he was in the process of transitioning to Stage 2.  Sometime later Rory and I spoke, it was clear his time in Stage 2 revealed that while he was not entirely in agreement with the changes, he understood the rationale for the changes.  This level of acceptance allowed him to transition to Stage 3 where he was preparing for how he could best support the change. 

Rory’s story exemplifies one of Prochaska’s key findings, true behavioral change is not a single event but a series of successive steps.  On this, most experts agree, change is a process, not an event.  The fact that Rory transitioned to Stages 2 and 3 highlights another important point, the momentum we build with our clients can help their horizontal and vertical development long after our relationship ends.  For coaches working with clients at any stage, it is important to remember that our clients will not always transition across stages during our time with them and that is ok.  

To Be Continued…

In part 2 of our series on the Transtheoretical Model, we look at how to facilitate a client’s contemplation of change.  This includes their relationship to change and their thoughts about what meaningful change might look like.

The remainder of this series, and future articles, will release under the Palladian Executive Coaching profile on LinkedIn.  For those who wish to continue receiving articles from this series, please follow our company, Palladian Executive Coaching on LinkedIn. 

Bibliography

Boston University Medical Campus. (n.d.). Behavioral Change Models. Retrieved from Boston University Medical Campus: https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories_print.html

Boston University School of Public Health. (2019, September 9). The Transtheoretical Model (Stages of Change). Retrieved from Boston University School of Public Health: https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories6.html

Boyatzis, R. (2017, February 21). The Five Stages of Intentional Change Theory. Retrieved from Key Step Media: https://www.keystepmedia.com/intentional-change-theory/

Boyatzis, R. (2017, February 21). The Five Steps of Intentional Change Theory. Retrieved from Key Step Media: https://www.keystepmedia.com/intentional-change-theory/

Cherry, K. (2019, November 27). The 6 Stages of Behavior Change: The Transtheoretical of Stages of Change Model. Retrieved from Very Well Mind: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-stages-of-change-2794868

De Leon, A. (2020, February 21). Applying the Transtheoretical Model for Health Coaches and Exercise Professionals. Retrieved from ACE Fitness: https://www.acefitness.org/fitness-certifications/ace-answers/exam-preparation-blog/7480/applying-the-transtheoretical-model-for-health-coaches-and-exercise-professionals/

H, P. (2018, September 12). Behavior Change: Evidence of Progress. Retrieved from The National Domestic Violence Hotline: https://www.thehotline.org/2018/09/12/behavior-change-evidence-of-progress/

Harvard Health Publishing. (2012, March). Why Behavior Change is Hard - and Why You Should Keep Trying. Retrieved from Harvard Health Publishing-Harvard Medical School: https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/why-behavior-change-is-hard-and-why-you-should-keep-trying

Hicks, R. (2019, January 9). Coach’s Corner: Traveling the Stages of Behavior Change. Retrieved from American Association for Physician Leadership: https://www.physicianleaders.org/news/coach-corner-traveling-stages-behavior-change

Kreger, N. (2012, September 17). Prochaska’s Transtheoretical Model of Change and Its Application to Coaching. Retrieved from Coach Campus: https://coachcampus.com/coach-portfolios/research-papers/nathan-kreger-transtheoretical-model-of-change/

Liu, K. T., Kueh, Y. C., Arifin, W. N., Kim, Y., & Kuan, G. (2018, December 17). Application of Transtheoretical Model on Behavioral Changes, and Amount of Physical Activity Among University’s Students. Retrieved from Frontiers In Psychology: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02402/full

Moore, M., Highstein, G., Tschannen-Moran, B., & Silverio, G. (n.d.). Coaching Behavior Change. Retrieved from Lippincott: https://downloads.lww.com/wolterskluwer_vitalstream_com/sample-content/9780781772624_Moore/samples/MooreSampChap3.pdf

Pro-Change Behavior Systems Inc. (n.d.). The Transtheoretical Model. Retrieved from Pro-Change Behavior Systems: https://www.prochange.com/transtheoretical-model-of-behavior-change

Prochaska's Stage Model of Change. (n.d.). Retrieved from PC3 Coaching Toolkit: https://pc3coachingtoolkit.pbworks.com/w/page/54072360/Prochaska%27s%20Stage%20Model%20of%20Change

Stages of Change. (n.d.). Retrieved from The University of Rhode Island Cancer Prevention Research Center: https://web.uri.edu/cprc/transtheoretical-model/stages-of-change/

Stages of Change Model (Transtheoretical Model). (n.d.). Retrieved from Rural Health Information Hub : https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/toolkits/health-promotion/2/theories-and-models/stages-of-change

Sutton, J. (2021, September 26). The 6 Stages of Change: Worksheets for Helping Your Clients. Retrieved from Positive Psychology: https://positivepsychology.com/stages-of-change-worksheets/

Theeboom, T., Van Vianen, A. E., & Beersma, B. (2017, August 8). A Temporal Map of Coaching. Retrieved from Frontiers In Psychology: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01352/full

Vera Whole Health. (2019, September 18). What Is The Transtheoretical Model of Change. Retrieved from Vera Whole Health: https://www.verawholehealth.com/blog/what-is-the-transtheoretical-model-of-change

Virginia Tech University. (n.d.). The Stages of Change. Retrieved from Virginia Tech Continuing and Professional Education: http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gttc/presentations/8eStagesofChange.pdf

Waytz, A., & Mason, M. (2019, January). Your Brain at Work. Harvard Business Review: The Brain Science Behind Business, pp. 11-19.