In search of the 'Holy Grail' (Part 2): Marvel Superheroes and Behaviour change

One of the first movies I watched in the cinema was the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers. Back in the early 90s. In case you’re not aware, it's a fantasy film involving a group of very ordinary kids who each possess the ability to transform into superheroes at the press of a button (skin-tight spandex and all).

Looking back, I’d forgotten how incredibly cheesy it all was. Fast forward to 2018, and we still have this enduring relationship with superhero movies (Marvel's recent Infinity War trailer is the most viewed trailer of all time). The allure could be attributed to many things, for sure, but I suspect like most fantasy films, part of the enchantment lies in the vicarious pleasure we experience: like H.G Wells' "door in the wall", we escape reality to enjoy a world of ordinary human beings transforming into extra-ordinary ones, performing amazing feats along the way.

(Whether or not at some meta-level, Marvel's huge success and our continued fascination with them, is in part due to some unconscious aspiration we have as audiences to 'change ourselves', or become the heroes and heroines of our own stories, is perhaps debatable).

Can human beings really change?

[**Warning tiny Daredevil 3 spoiler in the following paragraph**]

I was struck recently by the latest installment of Marvel's Daredevil, where Matt Murdock - the eponymous hero - asks the following question, one which lies at the heart of the series:

Can human beings really change who they are? Matt answers:

"I don't think we can, not really. I think we come into this world as who we are. Maybe we become a little nicer, a little angrier but we can't change our fundamental nature."

Grim? Fatalistic? Think about what Matt's conclusion means for that relative who always 'puts their foot in it' or the colleague who is persistently difficult to work with. Well, if by 'fundamental nature' Matt means our 'core personality' - habits of mind and action present since we were young - then I'm inclined to say yes and no. Without getting into the nature vs nurture debate, human personality does remain largely stable throughout our lives; there's a constancy to it. So on that level we can't really change our 'fundamental nature'.

What we can do, however, is be exposed to the right 'affectively rich' contexts, that create meaningful shifts in our sense of identity: that is to say, situations which serve not to change our fundamental nature as such, but redefine how we see ourselves and therefore how we behave. More on that shortly, but hence my non-committal response above!

Behavioural Economics: a little theory

Decades ago, psychologist Kurt Lewin proposed that behavior is a function of the person and their environment in his 'formula' B = F(P, E). Standford's behaviour scientist BJ fogg has perhaps a more modern take on Lewin's formula, he says that there are only three places to begin when it comes to changing behavior: a) have an 'epiphany' (Lewin's 'P') b) change your environment or c) take baby steps (a la nudge theory).

Changes in behaviour can and do of course occur all the time. And 'nudge' techniques show that we needn't necessarily try to change the person.

But ultimately Daredevil does have a point. Actions flow from identity - our sense of who we are and what's important - the challenge with nudges is that they often don't go 'deep' enough to tackle the more serious problems such as climate change, financial ethics issues or racism for example. We need more than a bit of behaviour modification (getting people to 'pretend'), or behaviour nudging (influencing their choices) in order to see real traction in these areas.

And I think the key, is in part, how we can create nudges at the level of personality/identity.

Lets say a little more.

X-Men, Railways and Disruption

Our beliefs are the rails upon which our lives run.

Imagine your life as journeying on a railway track.

By and large we live on 'auto-pilot'; to a greater or lesser degree we all come to be defined by our routines. Upon closer inspection we see that it's our beliefs - our assumptions and ideas about reality - that form the rails upon which our lives run.

Every now and then, however, our journey experiences some disruption; we experience the equivalent of someone pressing the brakes so hard it switches us off autopilot. Or, further still, something hits us from the side, knocking us off the rails all together and onto a completely, new, track. This is what I mean by creating nudges at the level of identity.

Typically we might describe these - the idea of 'pressing the brakes' or being knocked of the proverbial rail - as 'epiphanies', or 'aha' moments. But I think that's a little simplistic. What I think is going on in these moments is who we take ourselves to be is changing, as our experience of reality expands beyond the perimeters that demarcate personality, as Sandra Maitri put it. In other words, and to continue the analogy, when encounter some 'disruptive' experience it not only shifts us onto new tracks so to speak, but we come to see the existence of multiple tracks, i.e. new ways of being and acting.

I contend, then, that unless we're willing and sufficiently equipped to create these kinds of experiences, we're unlikely to see a real impact on behaviour.

How do we do this as learning professionals? One-to-one coaching or 'talk-therapy' are the common methods, but not very scalable.

Imagine if, to take employee induction as one example, we used the face-to-face event to create conditions which new joiners have no preparation for, as a way of simulating on-the-job challenges? Think about those moments you’re sat nav doesn’t work, and you're lost in some situation you’ve never been in and have to improvise. This can either bring out the resourceful, heroic side of you or just the opposite. How might that kind of disruptive experience impact a new joiner, and prepare them for life in a fast-paced organisation? We're seeing that experiences like these are far more memorable for employees, and do more to 'build capability' than traditional courses.

As Nick Shackleton-Jones put it once, "people come to be defined and redefined at the points at which there’s complete uncertainty about a course of action to take, for example, but where from that point onward they see themselves differently. Others see them differently and they come to behave differently."

Or put another way:

"Over a lifetime there are only four or five moments that really matter. Moments when you're offered a choice to make a sacrifice, conquer a flaw, save a friend - spare an enemy. In these moments everything else falls away.” - Colossus (in Deadpool I)

This is the heart of experience design. This is the Holy Grail of learning.

In summary, then, Matt Murdoch may well be right about the Kingpin and the rest of us, as far as our 'fundamental nature' goes. But lasting change needn't mean a change in our nature - whatever you take that to mean. To continue the railway analogy, if our fundamental nature is the train itself, then what we need is not a completely new carriage, just a 'nudge' or a series of nudges that touch us on an affective level, and help us change course.

Clearly change is a process but if we want people to do things differently, then we'll need to start doing something different. So the next time you're designing a learning event, ask yourself the question: how might we take delegates' off 'autopilot'?

I'll be sharing part 3 of this post in the coming weeks. In the meantime Nick Shackleton-Jones and I will be speaking at the CIPD Annual Conference Exhibition in Manchester next month. I'm grateful to Nick for pushing and informing my thinking on this. What's more is we'll be running a session on experience design on Day 2 of the event - Nov 8th. If you're around feel free to pop by and say hello!