The Ascend Execution Framework: A Practical, Evidence-Based Upgrade on Traditional Behaviour Change Models

By Ascend Education

Introduction

Most health and fitness professionals are taught to use classic behavioural change theories—Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the Transtheoretical Model (TTM), Motivational Interviewing (MI), or Self-Determination Theory (SDT). While valuable, these models can struggle to translate abstract motivation into clear action. Many clients “want” change but stall at decision points, get lost in ambiguity, or simply don’t know what real trade-offs are required.

The Ascend Execution Framework (WPCS+) is an outcome-focused, agency-driven alternative. It takes clients from wishful thinking to empowered action, then adds a skills-based post-decision roadmap. This article will explain why this model offers practical advantages over older approaches, and how you can apply it—step by step—with clients across health, fitness, and coaching.

Why Traditional Behaviour Change Models Fall Short

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow’s classic pyramid (Maslow, 1943) frames human needs as a rigid sequence—physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, self-actualisation. But research shows these aren’t always sequential, nor are higher “needs” like self actualisation strictly necessary for survival (Wahba & Bridwell, 1976; Tay & Diener, 2011). These top levels are better described as wants, not empirical needs, and lack falsifiability—a core scientific standard (Popper, 1959).

Transtheoretical Model (TTM)
TTM proposes change occurs in stages (pre-contemplation → action → maintenance), but critics argue stages are artificial and rarely linear; readiness doesn’t always predict behaviour (West, 2005).

Motivational Interviewing (MI)
MI is a powerful, client-centered method for exploring ambivalence (Miller & Rollnick, 2012), but can be slow and depends heavily on practitioner skill.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
SDT focuses on three innate needs—autonomy, competence, relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000)—but is more descriptive than prescriptive. It doesn’t clarify how to act when values, comfort, and reality collide.

The WPCS+ Model: From Motivation to Ownership

WPCS+ stands for:

1. Wants: What specific outcome does the client desire?

2. Preferences: How do they wish to achieve it? What methods, environments, or constraints do they prefer?

3. Consequences: What happens—both positive and negative—if those preferences take priority?

4. Sacrifices: What must be given up, endured, or changed to reach the outcome?

5. Maximise the Result: How to get the best possible return on chosen actions?

6. Minimise the Damage: How to reduce risks and negative outcomes if trade-offs are imperfect?

7. Mitigate Entirely: Are there alternative paths to the same outcome, with fewer costs or side effects?

This structure exposes “if X, then Y” trade-offs and moves clients from indecision to conscious ownership of their behavior.

Scientific Foundations

• Implementation Intentions—Setting clear “if-then” plans increases follow-through (Gollwitzer, 1999).

• Negotiated Decision-Making—Recognising trade-offs increases adherence (Burr, 2015).

• Relapse Prevention—Planning for setbacks (Marlatt & Donovan, 2005).

The Ascend Execution Expansion: From Decision to Execution

Once a path is chosen, a critical follow-up question emerges:
“Do you have the skills, competence, and systems needed to follow through?”

This is where most models stop—but execution is where change succeeds or fails. The Ascend Execution Framework adds four crucial steps:

1. Identify the Necessary Skills

What skills or knowledge are required for the behaviour?

• Example: For nutrition adherence: meal prep, tracking macros, label reading, emotional regulation.

Reference:
Skill-based health interventions outperform education-only models for diet, exercise, and chronic disease management (Schwarzer et al., 2011).

2. Assess Current Competence

What is the client’s actual level of competence at each skill?

• Use self-assessment, direct observation, or validated tools (e.g., nutrition knowledge quizzes, movement screenings).

Reference:
Accurate self-assessment predicts engagement and improvement (Dunning et al., 2004).

3. Develop a Skill-Building Plan

What needs to happen to close the gap between current and required skill?

• Target one skill at a time with deliberate practice and feedback loops (Ericsson et al., 1993).

Example:

• If meal prep is weak, assign a “prep for 3 days” task, watch client do it, give feedback, repeat.

Reference:
Deliberate practice with feedback is essential for skill mastery, in both health and athletic contexts (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer, 1993; Lally et al., 2010).

4. Establish Frequency and Feedback Loops

How often must the skill be practiced or the behaviour executed for progress? What’s the feedback cycle?

• Define minimum frequency (“Meal prep every Sunday,” “Track food daily”)

• Set up regular check-ins, self-monitoring, or coach review

Reference:
High-frequency practice and regular feedback increase long-term behaviour retention (Lally et al., 2010).

Framework in Action: Example

Client: Wants to lose 10kg and build strength.

1. Wants: “I want to lose 10kg, feel strong, and fit my old clothes.”

2. Preferences: “I don’t want to give up eating out, and I hate early morning workouts.”

3. Consequences: Slower fat loss, harder to control calories, will need more planning.

4. Sacrifices: Give up snacking after 8pm, trade some social outings for home meals.

5. Maximise: Batch cook favourite recipes; book strength sessions with a friend for accountability.

6. Minimise: Allow one planned “social meal” per week; pre-log calories in tracking app.

7. Mitigate: If eating out increases, do a “protein-only” rule or focus on step count.

8. Skills Needed:

   • Meal prepping

   • Using food tracker app

   • Strength training technique

   • Navigating restaurant menus

9. Competence Level:

   • Meal prep: Beginner

   • App: Intermediate

   • Strength training: Intermediate

   • Menu navigation: Novice

10. Skill Plan:

• Meal prep: Watch YouTube demo, prep two recipes, send photos to coach.

• App: Log all food for 7 days, review with coach.

• Strength: Attend PT session for feedback.

• Menu: Bring menu to session, practice choosing options.

11. Frequency:

• Meal prep: 2x/week

• Logging: Daily

• Strength: 3x/week

• Menu review: Before each restaurant outing

Advantages Over Traditional Models

1. Falsifiable and Observable

• You can track whether the client did the behavioru, learned the skill, and maintained the frequency.

2. Integrates Motivation, Action, and Mastery

• Unlike most models, it takes the client from “why” to “how” to “what next.”

3. Rapidly Uncovers and Resolves Stalls

• If progress fails, you can pinpoint whether it’s a decision, skill, or system issue.

4. Flexible, Evidence-Based, and Client-Led

• Works for nutrition, exercise, medication adherence, business, and more.

5. Respects Client Agency Without Over-Therapising

• Moves beyond “readiness” to empower clients to negotiate, own, and execute their change plan.

Key References

• Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

• Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J.M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106.

• Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.

• Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.

• Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C.H.M., Potts, H.W.W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009.

• Marlatt, G.A., & Donovan, D.M. (Eds.). (2005). Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviorus (2nd Ed.).

• Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.

• Miller, W.R. & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change (3rd Ed.).

• Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.

• Schwarzer, R., Luszczynska, A., et al. (2011). Self-efficacy as a moderator in the planning–behaviour relationship: A meta-analysis. Psychology & Health, 26(11), 1450–1468.

• Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–365.

• Wahba, M.A., & Bridwell, L.G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 15(2), 212–240.

• West, R. (2005). Time for a change: Putting the Transtheoretical (Stages of Change) Model to rest. Addiction, 100(8), 1036–1039.

Conclusion

The Ascend Execution Framework upgrades behavioural change coaching from abstract theory to real-world action. By clarifying wants, surfacing preferences, negotiating trade-offs, and then mapping the skill-building journey, it offers the most direct, falsifiable, and client-centered path to lasting change.

If you’re ready to move clients from stuck to strategic, integrate this framework into your practice today.