Choice Architecture – how business communications can smooth the way to better decisions
What is the role of choice architecture in our lives and our communications?
Consumers and brand owners seem obsessed with choice. Multiple TV channels, streaming services, vape flavours, you name it.
The concept of mass customisation to boost consumer choice is perhaps most obvious in the new car market. Users can specify increasingly small elements of colour, trim and fittings. The days of simply opting for basic or deluxe are long gone.
Politicians are the same. NHS reforms mooted by both Conservative and Labour governments have championed patient choice. Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments were sold as a means to give claimants more choice as to how they spend their money.
Yet, in our personal lives, we often recognise the value of limiting our choices. We may set boundaries for our children, make a meal plan for the week so we can budget, and eliminate distractions in our workspace so we can focus (in my case on writing). That’s choice architecture. We are nudging ourselves and those around us to do the right thing.
Too much choice can be stifling. How often have I stood rooted to the spot, holding up the queue, when trying to choose a gin from the hundreds on offer behind the bar?
In business, how we communicate is often governed by the choices we want our stakeholders to take. We are guiding them towards making what we see as the right choice.
We have several techniques for this, but there are three key principles behind successful choice architecture. To change their behaviour, a person must possess:
This is sometimes referred to as the COM-B model.
Communications guides choices by demonstrating to the audience that they possess all three, making an intellectually coherent and emotionally engaging case for change.
If our communications don’t get this right, the danger is that others will nudge our stakeholders to act in the way they want instead. These may be competitors taking our customers away or a colleague convincing the board to take the firm in a different direction. We may encounter this in conflicts about profit vs sustainability, office-based vs flexible working, and so on. The chosen outcome may not suit our purposes at all and may lead to poor decision making.
领英推荐
We have seen a dramatic example from recent research which shows that one in five people aged 18-45 in the UK believe that having a strong leader without elections is the best system for running a country.
Older generations, who remember fascism and the Cold War, are noticeably more favourable towards democracy.
If reputation is the result of what you do, what you say and what others say about you, it is clear that the democratic system has neither done well nor explained itself persuasively to younger people.
It just goes to show how bad ideas can take hold when communications don’t hit the spot.
(By the way, I am not suggesting your business can solve all the world’s problems, although the most recent Edelman Trust Barometer suggests over three-quarters of people questioned believe CEOs are justified in tackling a societal issue if they can make a major difference.)
So, what practical steps can businesses take to ensure they don’t leave a vacuum into which someone else can move?
·? Consider how the COM-B model lies behind every behaviour change communication you make
·???Be very clear about why your recommended option improves your stakeholders’ lives
·???Don’t overburden people with choice – a few options may be more powerful than total flexibility
Thinking of those car manufacturers again, perhaps Henry Ford’s famous statement is due for a rerun: “Any colour the customer wants, as long as it’s black”.
?