Psychological “Nudges” in Change Management

Psychological techniques for shaping behavior have been used effectively in government policy-making for quite some time (search on MINDSPACE if interested), but surprisingly not as commonly in organizational change management situations. This blog focuses on a number of potentially powerful psychological techniques that can be applied in organizational change projects that are subtle and simple, but powerful when applied correctly.

When describing these techniques to a client recently (which Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein call “nudges” - a wonderfully descriptive term for how these techniques work), she responded by saying they sounded “manipulative”. And in a way she was right. But it is important to note that these psychological drivers operate naturally – they occur all the time in all of us, largely without our awareness - these mechanisms operate automatically within us (what psychologist and Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman describes as “System 1”). What we, as change management specialists, are able to do is utilize these techniques to shift behavior in a positive manner.
What is also probably obvious, but important to note, is that the use of these techniques must be applied specifically to encourage the behaviors, actions or decisions needed in the various phases of a change initiative. Unfortunately, this is something that many change management consultants underemphasize or ignore – in other words, clearly analyzing and articulating the behavior changes or actions needed from employees in key phases of the initiative.
Priming
Kahneman, in his groundbreaking book entitled “Thinking Fast and Slow”, describes the “marvels” of priming: For example, if you have recently read or heard the word EAT or FOOD, you are more likely to complete the word fragment SO_P as SOUP rather than SOAP. The opposite would be the case if you had read or heard the word WASH. EAT primes SOAP and WASH primes SOAP. We do this unconsciously. Amazing but true! Kahneman notes that it is difficult for many of us to accept that many of our behaviors and emotions can be primed by events of which we are entirely unaware. Of course, savvy marketers are very aware of these factors and effectively “prime” our thinking and buying behavior. Amazingly, in other research studies, “priming” groups of students with the words “forgetful, old age, lonely” and so on made these students walk much more slowly from the interview room than students that were “primed” with more energetic words. Athletes "prime" themselves with energetic and powerful mantras and images. Change leaders can also utilize this phenomenon by, for example, priming employees as they arrive at work, (and frequently during the day) with words or phrases that energize change-oriented behavior. Words like “Innovate, speed, agility, collaborate” and so on, could be effective “priming” effects. In one technology company I worked with, I noticed that many of the work area and hallway walls were proudly adorned with the examples of technology breakthroughs that they had historically through the decades. While these items were truly amazing examples of legacy breakthroughs, I was convinced that these “old” artifacts primed many employees to be complacent and think “old” versus to be innovative about breakthroughs of the future. This organization fundamentally missed the huge technology advance from older devices to new, smaller mobile devices and have struggled to catch up.
Decision Framing
People react very differently to the same information presented in different ways. Thaler and Sunstein describe research that shows that when a problem or decision is presented in a positive or negative way that implies loss or gain, people will overwhelmingly respond differently, despite the fact that the basic information is the exactly same. In one study, if doctors are told that “ninety of one hundred patients survived" as a result of a certain type of surgery, they are much more likely to recommend surgery than If told that “ten of one hundred died”. Our “System 1” brain responds immediately to this kind of loss or gain information without the more logical and thoughtful consideration of our System 2. Framing occurs because, as Kahneman notes, our System 2 brain tends to be lazy, and most people tend not to think deeply about what we hear or read – we tend to react to information in the moment (especially when under pressure or stressed). Elliot Aronson ("The Social Animal") also describes fascinating research examples of our built-in tendency to respond very differently simply based on how a choice is presented (Indeed, it can be quite scary when we begin to be more aware of how easily our behaviors and decisions can be swayed). This human tendency can be used for positive benefit in organizational change initiatives by developing communications about the change process that “frames” information in a way that will be interpreted positively by our System 1 brains. For example, in many technology change projects, there is often a lot of information communicated about what IS changing – the response to these changes can very often foster resistance and fear. Leveraging the framing effect, communications could begin by describing what will stay the same. For example, while systems are implemented, the business processes behind the systems often remain the same or similar and thus less intimidating to many employees who may find this kind of system change intimidating.
Availability Heuristic
If people are asked the question, what is higher; the number of murders versus suicides in the United States, they answer unequivocally that there are more murders than suicides (unless they are experts in this field). This is because we hear or read about murders on the news frequently – our System 1 retrieves this information quickly and assumes that because we hear about it a lot, in this case homicides, must be more frequent. Change leaders can effectively utilize this human tendency to create “rules of thumb” by, for example, communicating about positive change experiences frequently. Change projects often produce bursts of communications when specific phases are underway, rather than on a regular and frequent basis. Frequent and ongoing communications and discussion about change creates two important heuristics - firstly that change can be positive, and secondly, change is something that is ongoing versus occasional and scary.
Inertia or the Status Quo bias
I, like most people, stick with default settings when I, for example, download a new software program – I simply accept the recommended defaults. Software vendors who include a “Recommended” setting are leveraging the “Status Quo bias” that almost all of us have. Change leaders can also leverage this human tendency for inertia by providing recommendations when people are faced with changes, or when they need to make change related choices. For example, most change leaders know all too well that employees tend to resist change when it is forced on them. A technique to both overcome this resistance is to provide several options AND to include a recommended selection. For example, a few years ago I was working with a procurement team developing new global processes. Instead of deploying new required process, we held workshops that allowed employees to bring their own thinking and experience into the process. We provided a few examples of what other regions had successfully implemented and made a recommendation on what we thought was best. Almost universally, the recommended default was accepted without resistance.
Fear of loss versus incentive of gain
Humans tend to hate losses much more than they are excited about gaining the same thing. For example, if people are asked to play a game where a coin is flipped – if heads these people win $X dollars and if tails they lose $100. Kahneman describes research that shows that $X will generally have to be about $200 for people to be willing to play this game. In other words, the fear of losing is about twice as great as the possibility of winning. For example, I was working on a project some years ago where incentives where provided to keep consultants on the project until the end (consultants tend to begin looking for their next project many months in advance of the end of an existing project, and will tend to leave the existing project for a new one. This project offered bonuses for consultants to remain to the end. These bonuses had little effect, and many consultants left early. A more effective method would have included retaining a portion of the consultants agreed pay until the end to leverage the fear of loss.

In my next blog, I will describe other psychological “nudges” that can have powerful benefits in organizational change settings.