Helping People Decide to Change

Developing an effective incentive and performance program is more than just offering a reward for a specific result.  One of the first things you need a program to do is get your participants to make a decision to change - sometimes a decision they are unfamiliar with or may not be comfortable with.

I ran across this post by Kare Anderson on her blog  "Say it Better" a week or so ago and it did a great job summing up a few of the ways people are influenced when making decisions - or more accurately how they fool themselves during the decision making process.  These are important considerations when putting programs in place to influence your audience.

Anchoring

When considering a decision, the mind gives disproportionate weight to the first information it receives - or any specific information provided.  In other words - if you tell someone that the program will increase sales 10% - that  becomes their anchor for decision making.  If they don't believe 10% is doable - they will start with the idea the program is not going to work.   A better approach is to ask them what they think the program will do for them - let them establish the anchor  - the goal.  You will have a much better chance of getting someone to change  behavior if they established the goal in the first place. 

The Justify- Past-Actions Trap

The actions you have taken in the past to hit your goals become the "only way" for you.  When you consistently follow a course of action it is more difficult to change direction and acknowledge you now feel differently.  As an example, if you always start your presentations with a specific introduction - and you think it works, and have done it a thousand times - changing this behavior will be tough.  Changing your behavior it is almost like saying your past behavior wasn't the result of good decisions.  Whenever you invest time, money, or other resources in an approach, or your personal reputation is at stake, you will find it more difficult to change your decision or course of action.  The way around this is to disconnect the program from the past - don't allow the participants to make the connection between their past behavior and the behavior you want to see.  This can be done by presenting the program as something "completely" new - never been done before - or as an experiment, so there is no judgment on their past approach or behavior.

And probably the most insidious of them all...

The Status-Quo Trap

To pull a quote directly from Kare's post...

We instinctively stay with what seems familiar. Thus we look for decisions that involve the least change.

For example, when radically new products are introduced they are made to look like an existing and familiar product. The first cars looked like horseless carriages. The first online newspapers and magazines had formats much like their print counterparts.

To protect our egos from damage we avoid acting to change the status quo, even in the face of early warnings that demonstrate that change will be safer. We look for reasons to do nothing.

This is the grand-daddy of all reasons to not change.  If the behavior you are looking for is very different from the past you will have a much tougher job.  Try this - look for the smallest change first, then the next, then the next.  See if you can "change" the status quo in very small increments.  It may add time to the overall behavior change but it will much smoother.

In addition, look for places where the new behavior is already the status quo.  Show evidence that the new process/procedure/behavior has worked successfully elsewhere.  Once people see that the change isn't as big as they think, and is has been successful, they will be less likely to resist the change.

These are only a few elements of how people look at change and rationalize resistance to it.  Take the time to understand their point of view and create a program that doesn't challenge their past actions and but helps them see a new way to success.

 

Comments

[Toby Lucich]

Good post - how important is that "call to action" that drives change within the business.

I've been consulting in Sarbanes Oxley change for the past few years, and have repeatedly marveled at how a clear the "tone at the top" sends the message that change is not optional. In a few instances, it has been possible to marry change initiatives to incentive compensation, with great success.

While few seek out change (particularly regulatory), I think that organizations that allow folks to play a role in deciding the change and incentive people for it meet with greater success.

Being changed is much more painful that leading change.

[Enrique Burgos]

I agree with your post, but there is one main problem I found through years, 99% of the companies dont consider their employees, distributors, dealers thoughts and possible influences in their routines, way of sale when propose an incentive scheme. Never. And its a big mistake as you told. I just found one company (Bonduelle, french vegetable company) that developes incentives for its distributors, with indivual meetings with them, planning objectives, incentives, rewards. But its a huge work.

[Kare Anderson]

... and if you liked that post (thank you) consider reading Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice and, of course, the classic Smart Choices
http://sayitbetter.com/store/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=SCB&Category_Code=T2F

[Drew Hawkins]

This post debunks the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. Staying in one mindset really doesn't go far in encouraging growth. One benefit of looking in the past is seeing where we've screwed something up and trying not to make the same mistakes twice.