Many organizations want to be more assertive in championing sustainability, but they have very understandable concerns.

Sustainability is a broad and complex issue encompassing everything from global warming to manufacturing processes. So it’s easy to feel unqualified to speak or too overwhelmed to know where to start. Feeling this way is known as choice overload in behavioral science, and it alone can lead to inaction.

In addition, no clear standard of excellence exists in many areas. So any claim or effort an organization makes can be challenged as inadequate by anyone. There’s also a worry that any corporate messaging will be seen as self-serving or dismissed as “greenwashing” — even if companies have solid environmental practices to back them up. This problem is a kind of attribution bias, whereby we make (potentially incorrect) assumptions about why people or organizations behave in specific ways.

Given these concerns, it’s unsurprising that companies cautiously approach this topic. However, we can approach sustainability from a different (and complementary) angle.

“Instead of focusing solely on their own internal efforts, companies should strive to help people act on their intentions to live more sustainably.”

There are several benefits to this behavior-centered approach:

• It represents an opportunity to make a significant difference by helping millions of people make more sustainable daily choices, decisions, and behaviors
• It offers organizations a way to engage with sustainability on defined terms, which will lead to meaningful, genuine, and relevant actions.
• It can help build stronger bonds with employees and consumers, many of whom actively want to adopt more sustainable habits — and will appreciate (and reward) brands that support them.

What’s more, behavior change efforts are more than just corporate social responsibility or brand-building exercises. They can directly serve the organization's financial interests by encouraging and facilitating sustainable behaviors that save money or increase revenue. These “win-win-win” opportunities benefit the organization's best interests, its customers, and our planet.

So how can companies get started?

It begins with a change in orientation and some of their behaviors.

Begin by thinking small (and specifically!)

Rather than approaching sustainability from the 30,000-foot level, bring the conversation down to earth by defining precise shifts to more sustainable behaviors relevant to your company or brand. For example:

• Tide has focused its efforts on encouraging people to wash in cold water.
• Etihad Airways has rewarded its guests for making more sustainable decisions through its Conscious Choices loyalty program.
• The Hellmann brand is actively helping people to reduce food waste.

Opportunities like these exist across the private sector. The challenge is to identify the proper emphasis for your organization.

Focus on those with (latent) positive intent

The path to a more sustainable future is not with speaking to people already passionate about going green or those who actively oppose it. Instead, it rests in helping the majority form more sustainable habits. These people would like to do the right thing but aren’t necessarily taking action. Rather than getting society to “care more” about sustainability, focus on helping people act on their positive intent. This plan is called the value-action gap, and a behavioral insights approach offers ideas to turn intention into action.

Move beyond the traditional communications toolkit

The right messaging can create awareness and help create intent, but even the most compelling campaign is unlikely to change people’s habits. New sustainable behaviors happen (and stick) if you make them easy, attractive, social, and timely. This technique involves applying a behavioral insights approach and thinking in choice architecture, “nudging,” and habit loops.

Society has a long journey ahead to a more sustainable future. The path forward will involve significant changes in how companies operate, from their supply chains to product offerings.

While many of these changes will require significant time and investment, there are more immediate ways that organizations can make a difference.

By leveraging their vast skills and resources in a new direction — and leveraging the power of behavioral science — companies can help millions of people make positive changes in their lives. They can help reduce our collective environmental impact while being rewarded with more robust relationships with consumers, who will appreciate an active partner in their efforts to live more sustainably.

Please clap 👏👏 if you find this post helpful. Thanks!

Scott Young is a Principal Advisor and Head of Private Sector of the Behavioral Insights Team (BIT), Americas. Before joining BIT, Scott spent several years at the behavioral science consultancy BVA Nudge Unit and over 20 years leading Perception Research Services, a global shopper insights agency. Connect with Scott on LinkedIn.

Dr. Marcos Pelenur is Head of Sustainability and Decarbonization for BIT Americas. He has in-depth experience working with industrial and commercial sectors to reduce their carbon footprint, as well as helping households use their energy in clean and clever ways. Before BIT, Marcos worked in senior renewable energy, energy efficiency, and science policy leadership positions for the New Zealand government. He also led BIT UK’s work in energy and sustainability and was a Policy Advisor in the Cabinet Office of the UK government.

Reframing Sustainability Through a Behavioral Lens was originally published in Behavioral Design Hub on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

My behavioral science efforts often begin with helping organizations define their challenges more precisely. Conversations might have been sparked earlier by admirable company-wide initiatives in areas such as Sustainability, Human Rights, and Diversity. Yet, I've found those teams often have difficulty translating these broader goals into specific, measurable behavior changes and articulating which people and what choices they would like to influence.

It is only at this more detailed level that behavioral scientists can help organizations develop strategies and interventions that drive change. As importantly, this is where we as practitioners can raise a range of critical questions:

• Is this a challenge well-suited to Behavioral Science?
• Are we comfortable with this effort from an ethical standpoint?
• How will we test interventions and measure success?

But for all my "preaching" to clients about laser-defining their goals, I'm also very aware that our rapidly growing field has its issues with definition and terminology.

Behavioral Science terms are now referenced more frequently (and loosely) than ever, and it often appears that everyone is working from a slightly-different playbook. With this in mind, I'd like to share a quick perspective on several "definition" issues that I frequently encounter.

Behavioral Economics vs. Behavioral Science

Behavioral Economics (BE) and Behavioral Science (not to mention Behavioral Insights & Behavioral Design) get used interchangeably…perhaps due to concerns about a field grounded in "BS." However, I posit there is a distinction: Behavioral Economics is more deeply rooted in the study and understanding of human behavior and the field's academic grounding. Behavioral Science is more closely linked to the application and practice of academic literature to influence behavior.

For this reason, I favor "Behavioral Science" to describe my work as a practitioner. More broadly, I see the potential value in consistently using these two terms (BE and BS) to help distinguish between the academic and the applied.

"Nudging" vs. Marketing

"Nudge" has become a nearly universal term, used frequently and casually to describe a wide range of persuasion efforts or tactics, e.g., "Let's just nudge them along." Arguably, this is a positive sign, as it indicates an infusion into our collective thinking. However, this infusion also creates a concern that "nudging" will become classified (and perhaps dismissed) as just another marketing tool or communications strategy. Further, the popularity of "Nudge" leads many people to equate Behavioral Science with Nudging and ignore the field's far broader implications and applications.

I view the success and ubiquity of "Nudging" as an opportunity to educate clients on the broader field of Behavioral Science and the distinction between "Nudging" and Marketing. With the former, this involves introducing Behavioral Design and the idea that we can develop and inform better products, services, and systems through a deeper understanding of human behavior. With the latter, I typically position "Nudging" as a complement to traditional marketing, which can be particularly effective in helping people move from intent to action (on savings, personal health, sustainability, and many other areas).

Defining the Field

This discussion on terminology brings us to the most important and most consequential question: How do we define (or "frame") the field of Behavioral Science? We can break that down by explicitly asking:

• How does Behavioral Science add value?
• When should it be applied?
• What are the ethical implications of its use?
• Where should it "live" within organizations?

Of course, there's no single answer to these questions as each organization adopts and applies Behavioral Science based on their opportunities, challenges, and structure. I've found that a good starting point is to position Behavioral Science as a "new lens" to view challenges, rooted in an expanded (and evidence-based) understanding of human decision making, focused squarely on people's behavior, and committed to testing and measurement.

While this "working definition" is by no means complete, it helps ensure that Behavioral Science is perceived as more than a "tool" (to create nudges) and is understood to have applications that cut across multiple issues and functions.

I’ve found that a good starting point is to position Behavioral Science as a “new lens” rooted in an expanded (and evidence-based) understanding of human decision making, focused squarely on people’s behavior, and committed to testing and measurement.

Behavioral Science at a Crossroads

Our field has made enormous progress over the past decade, evolving from the academic study of Behavioral Economics to the broader horizon of applied Behavioral Science. And looking ahead, there's a significant opportunity to expand further its positive impact across the public, private and non-profit sectors.

Yet we arguably stand at a crossroads from which Behavioral Science will either become further integrated within organizations, policies, and processes, or it may become more misrepresented and ultimately dismissed as a marketing tool or the latest business fad.

To fully realize the field's potential, we need to begin by "practicing what we preach" and apply the further definition to our work. While distinguishing BE from BS — and Nudging from Marketing — may seem like relatively small semantic matters, they represent the beginning of the larger conversation to clarify our role and contribution (and perhaps our boundaries and limitations, as well).

Please clap 👏👏 if you find this post helpful. Thanks!

Scott Young is a Principal Advisor and Head of Private Sector of the Behavioral Insights Team (BIT), Americas.

Before joining BIT, Scott spent several years at the behavioral science consultancy BVA Nudge Unit and over 20 years leading Perception Research Services, a global shopper insights agency.

Scott is passionate about finding "win-win-win" opportunities (that benefit organizations, their employees and/or customers, and society) and applying behavioral science to help people make better decisions and adopt healthier habits. He is the author of 3 books and over 50 published articles, and he frequently guest lectures at Masters and Executive Education Programs, as he is a Senior Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics (LSE) and an Advisory Board Member for the MBDS program at the University of Pennsylvania.

Connect with Scott on LinkedIn.

It's Time To Define Behavioral Science was originally published in Behavioral Design Hub on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Richard Thaler often signs copies of his landmark book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness” with the inscription and admonition to “Nudge for Good.” He’s also written frequently and passionately about the evils of “sludge” (using behavioral science principles in ways that ultimately harm people, or that run counter to their own well-being). His co-author Cass Sunstein, in turn, has written an entire book regarding the ethics of applied behavioral science.

Clearly, the pioneers of this revolution realized from the beginning that there were ethical issues associated with choice architecture and nudging behavior change. To put it another way, they recognized that Behavioral Science was a method — and it could be applied to either help people or confuse and deceive them. To their credit, they emphasized and illustrated positive, pro-social applications (smoking cessation, retirement savings, etc.), and continue to argue publicly against using behavioral science for nefarious ends. Yet they were still subject to accusations of government overreach, paternalism or manipulation.

As we turn to the private sector, these ethical questions take on additional dimensions. After all, most businesses are driven primarily by a profit motive. For the purposes of this conversation, we can assume that they are operating legally and serving an underlying need. However, that’s not to say that there aren’t many “shades of grey” involved. Nudging people to eat more chips may be good for a business, its employees and shareholders, but it’s harder to argue that it is clearly good for society. Nudging salespeople to sell the most expensive and profitable products may drive revenue, but is it ethical?

This reality poses many challenging questions for private sector organizations, regarding the application of Behavioral Sciences:

• How can organizations apply behavioral science ethically in support of their profit motive?
• Should behavioral science be employed across all activities — or only within some functions?
• How and when is it ethical to nudge employees and customers?

Inevitably, organizations will have different approaches to these ethical questions. Some are already oriented towards business models that emphasize customer and employee retention, positive social impact and/or long-term profitability — and they will most likely view behavioral science through this lens. Others are arguably more transactional in nature and may think entirely in the context of ROI.

I’d argue that employing these new tools and frameworks properly is vital to their internal acceptance and long-term effectiveness. Thus, applying behavioral science ethically is not only the right thing to do, it’s also a good business strategy. To that end, let’s briefly discuss four (4) ways that leaders and internal champions can help ensure that their organizations are on the right track.

Defining Behavioral Science

Perhaps a leader’s most important role lies in effectively “defining” behavioral science within the organization. How does it fit? What should it be used for? These questions have obvious practical implications, in terms of driving acceptance and setting realistic expectations.

To that end, an important starting point is to position behavioral science as a complement to existing efforts. It is a new, additional framework with which to view opportunities and challenges, through the “lens” of System 1, human heuristics and behavior change. Thus, it can potentially add value to nearly all aspects of an organization, from insights to marketing and management. However, it is best viewed — and most likely to be embraced — as a “extra tool in the toolkit,” rather than a replacement for tested approaches.

In parallel with “framing” and positioning behavioral science for internal adoption, there’s the challenge of defining these tools from an ethical perspective. What are the standards for use? Who gets to decide?

In the absence of clear policies, guidelines or limits, it’s quite likely that behavioral science will be applied to support or enhance anything that the organization is doing today. Most likely, marketers and sales teams will naturally gravitate towards employing choice architecture, heuristics and nudges to drive revenue. For example, they may integrate defaults to “make it easier” for customers to automatically enroll or renew their purchases. Or they may add higher-priced options to influence choice architecture and subconsciously lead customers toward higher spending. And frankly, these approaches can easily be rationalized, as simple extensions of current marketing efforts.

Thus, it is up to management to pro-actively address this issue, by outlining a philosophy underlying the use of behavioral science. Here, I can suggest emphasizing two ideas:

• The objective of moving people from Intent to Action

The unique strength of Behavioral Science lies not in awareness or persuasion, but rather in helping those who are “already convinced” overcome their inertia and adopt new habits. In other words, it is best at facilitating change.

• The pursuit of long-term customer and employee relationships

There’s no question that these tools can be used to mislead people into splurging, super-sizing and spending more. But frequently, people will later regret these decisions and most likely resent (and possibly avoid) the organization involved. Similarly, some employees will have concerns and qualms as well. Clearly, this is not a promising long-term business strategy.

It’s far better to instead position Behavioral Science as a vehicle to help clients solve their larger life challenges (tied to health, wealth and happiness) — and/or for employees to “do the right thing” (tied to diversity, sustainability, etc.). In both cases, the potential rewards are significant. If a company can truly help a person solve a life challenge — or help an employee to feel good about herself and her work — they are likely to be rewarded with long-term loyalty.

Set the Tone by Starting Internally

A related question is where and how to begin applying Behavioral Science within an organization. On one level, this is a structural issue, which is addressed in greater depth elsewhere in this book. But it should also be considered from an ethical perspective, as the first projects can be powerful in setting a message across the organization.

For this reason, I recommend starting Internally (among employees), rather than Externally (among customers). In fact, there are several benefits to beginning by nudging employee behavior, such as healthy eating, sustainability or diversity/inclusion.

• First, efforts among employees are inherently lower risk, from a revenue and business standpoint — and thus, a good “testing ground” for new tools and approaches.
• Second, they also tend to be quite salient and visible within the organization, which can raise awareness, bring behavioral science “to life” and create success stories that resonate strongly.
• Third, they are very likely to steer the organization in a positive ethical direction, as they don’t raise the temptation (or accusation) of manipulation.

Of course, this is not to say that behavioral science can’t be applied ethically in marketing, insights, CX, design and sales functions — and depending on the scope and mandate of your team, you may need to start directly with external-facing initiatives. In fact, there are likely to be larger rewards, returns and ROI in these disciplines. However, as noted earlier, there are inherently greater challenges and risks as well, most notably balancing immediate financial incentives (to sell and profit) with ethical considerations (towards customers). Thus, you may be well-served to learn and “set precedent” internally, before moving on to external audiences.

Finding the Right Projects

Most likely, the selection and management of specific Behavioral Science projects will be delegated. However, leaders can help shape and influence this process, by providing frameworks and criteria to help guide decision making. Here, I can offer three guidelines, particularly as efforts involve influencing external audiences (customers, guests, etc.)

Begin with the business case (and existing intent)

The reality is that in a business context, pilot projects are more likely to get funded (and later recognized) if their financial impact can be clearly and easily quantified. Thus, I do encourage clients to look for opportunities with clear, measurable ROI potential (most likely via cost savings or increased revenue). Behavioral science doesn’t need to be limited to philanthropy and corporate social responsibility, as this limits its potential and undersells its impact. And pursuing positive ROI can be compatible with ethical considerations, provided that other important criteria are met.

For example, many hotel chains are losing millions in wasted food and energy use. This dollar figure helps frame (and justify) an investment in applying behavioral science to nudge guests in ways that could reduce this waste, much of which is inadvertent.

This final point (that the waste is inadvertent) is important, as nudging should not require convincing or coercing people, nor tricking them into new choices against their wishes. Instead, the goal is to help them convert their (positive) intent into action. In fact, if an effort requires helping people to act on their existing opinions/beliefs, it is likely a good fit for behavioral science tools.

Define the behavioral change (ethically)

For many clients, the most challenging step is viewing and defining their challenges through a behavioral lens. Often, they start with very broad objectives, such as “get more people to use our product,” and have difficulty articulating exactly which actions need to change. Yet the more narrowly managers can define desired changes (i.e. exactly who does what differently), the more likely they are to succeed.

For an Italian digital payments company we worked with, ethnographic research revealed that the primary behavioral opportunity lay in moving people from cash to digital for their small, everyday transactions. This transition was not only a business opportunity for the company but also provided clear convenience and security for consumers. Ultimately, this led to specific nudges targeted to newsstand/kiosk environments, reminding customers of digital payment options and benefits at their point of decision

Of course, this moment of definition also provides an opportunity to reconsider ethical dimensions. Is this specific behavior change in the best interest of the consumer? Is there evidence of incoming intent or openness to this change? Are we moving people from Intent to Action — or do they need to be actively persuaded or convinced?

Focus on “win-win-win” opportunities

Finally, we encourage private sector clients to search for changes at the intersection of what’s good for the company, its customers, and society. While this vision may sound idealistic or simplistic, it is actually a strong and realistic foundation for building long-term customer relationships. And importantly, there are clear opportunities across all business sectors:

• In financial services, businesses can better help investors to save money and plan properly.
• In health care, organizations can help ensure that patients take their medicines as directed.
• In hospitality, hotels can help guests conserve energy and reduce waste.
• In food and beverages, marketers can help people eat healthier, recycle and/or exercise portion control.

In our experience, it’s important for organizations to aim for these positive, pro-social outcomes, with the understanding that “shades of grey” will emerge in implementation, as they consider specific behavior changes and interventions. For example, it can often be difficult to determine if a particular action is clearly in the customers’ best interest — and in some cases, they may conclude that it is OK to “nudge for neutral,” provided that they are not intentionally deceiving, nor clearly hurting customers.

Navigating the Grey Area (with tools and processes)

If efforts are guided and grounded by clear, positive objectives, it becomes easier to navigate these real-world ethical issues and challenges. In addition, it’s valuable to provide business teams with processes and tools to help them evaluate new opportunities and/or proposed interventions. For example, teams could be provided a set of questions to use in deciding whether to pursue a given project or effort, such as:

• Would you be comfortable with this intervention, if you or a family member were the customer or participant involved?
• Would you be happy to fully explain/disclose this project and intervention to a participant?
• Would you be confident that participants will not regret the decisions they’ve made, due to this intervention?
• Would you be proud of your work, if this intervention was published on the front page of a national newspaper?

Behavioral Science also teaches us that salience is critical in instilling new habits and positive behaviors. Therefore, it’s important to develop reminder systems for integrating behavioral science into daily activities. For example, we recently helped a financial services client to build “BeSci Checklists” into training and support materials for their advisors, as visible reminders to guide their client interactions. We’ve also built in “Ethical Implications” as a formal criterion upon which to screen and optimize proposed interventions (“nudges”) prior to their implementation. Building these steps into the process, at both the project selection and executional level, serves to keep ethical considerations salient.

Applying Behavioral Science Ethically and Effectively

For business leaders, behavioral science represents both an opportunity and a responsibility. Clearly, there’s the potential to drive profitable change, among both customers and employees. And inevitably, there’s the temptation to jump immediately to opportunities and applications with the most immediate return and projected ROI.

However, it is wise to balance and guide these efforts with ethical considerations. By framing behavioral science properly, learning through Internal initiatives, finding the right projects and integrating ethical considerations within processes and reminder systems, leaders can lay the groundwork for lasting impact and success. Collectively, these steps will:

· Help promote internal acceptance and application

· Focus energies on efforts that are most likely to be successful, profitable and ethical

· Address and help mitigate concerns, by associating behavioral science with positive, pro-social change, rather than manipulation.

As importantly, they will help position Behavioral Science as a catalyst for a more sustainable approach to business, which aims to serve the long-term needs of all stakeholders (and society). Therefore, beyond infusing these new tools within our organizations, our larger goal should be to instill a new mindset, committed to the vision of applying behavioral science ethically and effectively.

A roadmap for transforming the Insights function

I spent the first 20 years of my career in Shopper Insights, leading Perception Research Services (PRS) and later PRS IN VIVO. And if I’m to generalize across many clients and studies, the most consistent theme that I observed was the gap between what people said — and what they actually did. Time and again, we’d ask people about new products– and perhaps 30%-40% would claim high levels of Purchase Interest (i.e. “Definitely Would Buy”). Yet shoppers would later visit our physical or virtual, simulated stores — and consistently walk right past the product and purchase their familiar brand.

My efforts to understand this disconnect are what led me to Behavioral Science. And now, I’ve come to realize that this journey represents both a roadmap and an opportunity for revitalizing and repositioning the Insights function.

“…the most consistent theme that I observed was the gap between what people said — and what they actually did.”

Transforming Insights

Behavioral Science has so many implications for consumer research and human understanding that it’s truly difficult to know where to begin. Many Insights professionals focus on the idea of “System 1” decision making, which leads them to abandon traditional tools – and search for new methods to measure visceral, emotional response to marketing communications. The concepts of human irrationality, heuristics and the “intent to action gap” resonate for others, who may question the value of asking people questions – and increasingly rely on behavioral data, which is more prevalent and available than ever before.

There’s clearly some validity to these interpretations: Behavioral Science does teach us that people are unreliable witnesses to their own preferences and behavior. Thus, we can’t simply ask them questions and take their responses at face-value. And there’s definite wisdom in focusing on what people actually do, as opposed to what they say, claim or predict.

However, we should also keep in mind that Big Data has its limitations as well: Sales figures and clickstreams can tell us what happened, but they rarely tell us why. For example, did people see and consciously reject a new product or offer? Or did they never even consider it, as they quickly defaulted to their familiar brand or choice? As importantly, sales data doesn’t tell us what would have happened, if the environment and situation were slightly different. These limitations point to two major opportunities to transform the insights function, through Observation and Experimentation.

“Sales figures and clickstreams can tell us what happened, but they rarely tell us why.”

Placing Observation at the Forefront

Behavioral Science tells us that people’s choices are often driven by their need to reduce their cognitive load. In other words, we all take “shortcuts” to save energy and simplify our lives. It then follows that so many of our choices – particularly for more frequent and low-risk purchases – are driven by what’s easiest. This is exactly what stacks the odds against new ideas: It’s simply much easier for a person to buy his or her familiar “good-enough” brand, rather than invest time and energy comparing dozens of options – or deciding whether or not a making a change is worth the risk.

Even when people would truly like to make a change – to eat healthier, for example – they find that “micro-barriers” (in the form of existing habits and heuristics) often stand in the way. Therefore, creating awareness, developing new features and even “convincing” people (through compelling advertising) is often not enough to change their behavior. Instead, it requires uncovering and removing the “micro-barriers” that stand in the way. This requires understanding the patterns – at home, online or in-store– that lead them to their current choices and behaviors. And the good news (for Insights professionals) is that there’s a multitude of new ways (via social networks, apps and more) to quickly and inexpensively observe and better understand people’s behavior patterns.

This is what leads us to observation (ethnography): Because these patterns are often so automatic and sub-conscious (“System 1”), people are unlikely to verbalize them. We can’t simply ask questions. Instead, we need to deeply observe, through the lens of habits and micro-barriers. And while ethnography might not be an entirely new concept or discipline, Behavioral Science suggests that it deserves a refresh – and a far more central role within the Insights function.

“[Changing behavior]… requires uncovering and removing the “micro-barriers” that stand in the way”

Accelerating Experimentation

A second enormous takeaway from Behavioral Science is that relatively small changes in context (“choice architecture”) can have a disproportionately large impact on people’s decisions. Thus, the best path to driving sales is not always a new feature or benefit, nor even a discount. Simply “framing” options differently – or making a specific offer more salient – can potentially have just as powerful an effect. This speaks directly to the importance (and necessity) of continually trying new approaches (new messages, new offers, new presentations, etc.) to gauge how they impact consumer behavior. Or to borrow from Harvard Professors Mike Luca and Max Bazerman, it speaks to The Power of Experiments.

Organizations need to adopt an experimentation mentality, just as Amazon, Google, Netflix and other tech giants continually A/B test new screens. Of course, testing can be more expensive and time-consuming in the physical world, which presents a challenge for Insights teams. On one hand, they clearly need to lower these barriers and reduce the cost of experimentation. On the other, they have a responsibility to avoid simply automating weak methods that are not predictive (i.e. to get the wrong answers faster!).

To navigate this dilemma, the most important principles are to retain context and measure choice. So rather than exposing people to products, concepts or ideas in isolation, ensure that they are always being asked to make decisions, in the context of a shelf, a web site or perhaps an app. In other words, the challenge is to make contextual, behavioral approaches more agile and affordable, as opposed to making the wrong decisions, more quickly.

“…organizations need to adopt and an experimentation mentality”

Leading the Organization

Ethnography and experimentation are more internally focused, in that they represent opportunities to evolve and enhance the Insights function. Yet Behavioral Science also presents a larger opportunity, to change the role of Insights within the organization – and ultimately help counter the current dynamic (of reduced budgets and increased demands) facing many research teams.

That’s because Behavioral Science has clear, proven applications throughout the organization, from Marketing and Sales to Human Resources and Operations. In fact, behavioral science interventions (“Nudges”) have been applied successfully to change both:

• Consumer, customer or guest behavior (“Nudge Marketing”)
• Organizational processes and employee behavior (“Nudge Management”)

It’s also quite clear that Insights is the natural “home” of Behavioral Science within the organization, given its deep roots in human understanding (i.e. ethnography) and its emphasis on testing-and-learning (i.e. experimentation). This points to a major opportunity for Insights to become the internal “champions” of a transformative new mindset, by helping to educate other teams – and accompanying them as they experiment in developing and testing interventions to change behaviors.

Taking on this leadership role will not simply involve an additional set of tasks and responsibilities: Importantly, it can lead to a change in perception, by linking Insights more directly to behavior change and ROI. Rather than being viewed as a cost center, Insights can become a visible partner in driving growth, by helping other teams develop and test interventions to drive specific behaviors.

Coming Full Circle

When I first transitioned to Behavioral Science consulting, I felt that I was “leaving” the world of Insights. Over five years later, I’ve come to realize that this is hardly the case. For while I’ve been fortunate to apply Behavioral Science to a wide variety of sectors and challenges, I’ve actually come “full circle” professionally. Increasingly, I find myself working with Insights teams, helping them apply Behavioral Science to their work – and to reposition Insights within their organizations. I find it satisfying that so many leaders have recognized and embraced this vision, as Behavioral Science represents an inspiring path forward for Insights within a rapidly changing world.

From Shopper Insights to Behavioral Science was originally published in Behavioral Design Hub on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Applying a Behavioral Science Lens to Employee Training

When companies or teams first learn about the powerful core principles of behavioral science, they’re typically excited to apply this new thinking to their business challenges. But in doing so, they often encounter a familiar dynamic:

Employees leave the room (or the call) energized. And then, nothing happens. They return to their offices, meetings and colleagues — and they fall right back into familiar patterns.

In fact, this Intent to Action gap (and its sidekick, the Forgetting Curve) applies to training of all kinds. Over $87.6 Billion is spent annually on corporate training and development (in the United States alone!) and it is often claimed that 80% of all training dollars are wasted. While this figure is debatable, we all know — often from personal experience — that most training sessions don’t lead to consistent behavior change.

Why Typical Employee Training Doesn’t Work

The primary reason is quite clear: Most training simply doesn’t take into account all we’ve learned about how people actually learn, nor how to actually change their behavior. For example, traditional training is typically:

• Conducted in large groups, within specific extended blocks of time (driven primarily by the convenience of the trainer or organizer).
• Dominated by a teacher, introducing new material (at the same pace for all participants)
• Evaluated via immediate feedback from participants, based on how much they “liked” or “valued” the session (before they’ve even had a chance to apply the learning).

Yet this ignores several core realities about learning:

• We all learn best in small doses (as our Cognitive Load is limited).
• We all learn at our own pace (as our speed, strengths and interests vary)
• Most importantly, we all “learn by doing” (rather than by listening).

In short, there appears to be a significant gap or tension between training (as commonly practiced) and learning and application (the end-goal of most efforts). By relying on traditional training methods, organizations are not optimizing efforts to help people actually absorb and apply information — and ultimately change their behavior.

By delivering information in traditional ways, organizations are not optimizing their efforts to help people absorb new information and actually change their behavior.

What Does Behaviorally-Informed Training Look Like?

To help employees learn, we must turn the traditional training model on its head. In fact, we need to apply the latest in Behavioral Science thinking to the challenge of teaching, infusing and instilling new ideas within organizations. But what exactly does this mean?

Re-Thinking The Format 🖼

Replacing extended group classroom sessions with short, pre-produced videos introducing key concepts, which people can watch individually at their own pace. Linking these Distributed Learning sessions to brief quizzes to reinforce knowledge (rather than evaluate) — because Test-Enhanced Learning promotes better retention than simply listening or reading.

Customizing Each Experience ✅

These quizzes, in turn, can provide the feedback needed to personalize each person’s learning experience, by revisiting specific topics and concepts. This Adaptive Learning approach can be enhanced by peer-to-peer project assignments, as we know that teaching others is a great way to learn.

Focusing on Coaching & Application 👏

Most importantly, complementing individual and peer learning sessions with interactive group sessions focused squarely on specific business challenges. Having these Applied Sessions moderated by coaches whose main purpose is to answer questions (rather than lecture) can help people better apply concepts to their own initiatives.

Creating Lasting Changes in Employee Behavior

Yet these fundamental changes in format are only a first step. That’s because our end goal is not simply to educate, but rather to create lasting changes in employee behavior. For this to happen, we need to view training/learning as the start of an ongoing process (of behavior change and habit formation), rather than as an isolated event.

Our end goal is not simply to educate, but rather to create lasting changes in employee behavior.

And in fact, it is here that most companies fall short. A recent study revealed that, on average, companies spend 85% of their training budgets on specific learning activities — and a mere 5% on “post-event training.” Thus, we need to correct this imbalance, by devoting comparable energy to behavioral strategies and tactics designed to instill new habits, including:

• Changes in the physical environment and “choice architecture” (to facilitate new behaviors)
• Small timely interventions (“nudges”) to prompt/remind people to act differently
• Process to reward and reinforce new processes, behaviors, and ways of thinking/working

For example, we’ve found that simply making desired behaviors more visible (via public calendars, e-mail signatures, shared surveys/tracking, etc.) can significantly improve compliance.

Re-Thinking Employee Training

In a rapidly changing world, organizations need to continue investing in their people. But for their training investments to provide desired returns (and instill new behaviors), they will need to apply Behavioral Science insights about how people learn — and what helps them to change their habits. Specifically, organizations will be well-served to:

✅ Re-think how efforts are evaluated — and more consistently emphasize, measure and reward the application of learning.

✅ Re-visit traditional teaching models — and transition from Training towards Coaching.

✅ Re-allocate resources — from one-time training sessions toward ongoing “Nudges” to reinforce behavior change.

At the Behavioral Insights Team, we regularly adopt this mindset to help build the Behavioral Science capacity of our partners. In other words, we apply Behavioral Science to teach Behavioral Science. Yet clearly, this approach can significantly improve training of all kinds, by increasing learning , retention and application. In our experience, we’ve found that applying Behavioral Science (to learning) is the key to helping organizations improve training, instill a new way of thinking — and overcome the Intent to Action gap.

Scott Young (scott.young@bi.team) is the Head of Private Sector at the Behavioral Insights Team (BIT). He joined BIT after 20+ years leading Perception Research Services and later PRS IN VIVO, a Top-25 global shopper insights agency. Scott is passionate about finding “win-win-win” opportunities (that benefit companies, consumers and society) — and in applying Behavioral Science to help individuals and organizations make better decisions and adopt healthier, more sustainable habits.

What We’ve Learned About Learning was originally published in Behavioral Design Hub on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

As we head into the U.S. election season this fall, we’ll all undoubtedly hear an overwhelming number of advertisements, attempting to persuade us to vote for one candidate or the other. But as we all know, the vast majority have already made up their minds — and those who haven’t typically are not very engaged in the political process. Thus, the more telling question is not whom individuals will support, but whether or not they will act on their preferences and actually vote. And in fact, voter turnout was only 60% in the closely contested 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

This reality speaks to a larger dynamic (and lesson), which is relevant to a wide range of advocacy and communications challenges, including the environment, diversity/inclusion, and inequality, among others.

The more telling question is not whom individuals will support, but whether or not they will act on their preferences and actually vote

In our world of data science and digital communications, we now have the unprecedented ability to segment people (based on demographics and/or their behavior) and send them micro-targeted messages. Yet a far simpler approach can also be quite helpful and effective. It simply divides people into three primary audiences, whom I’ll call the Advocates, the Antagonists, and the Agnostics.

The Advocates are those who truly believe in your cause.

It’s comforting and worthwhile to speak with fellow Advocates, as we all need others to support our efforts and help us spread the word. But often, we spend too much time “preaching to the converted” — or worse yet, assuming that the messaging that resonates with them will also be effective with others.

The Antagonists are those who actively disagree.

It’s tempting to speak at length with Antagonists, as we all love the satisfaction of winning an argument — and the potential thrill of “converting” the opposition. But often, these people take up too much of our time and mental energy. Generally speaking, it is wasted time, as they are not open to persuasion.

The Agnostics are those who nod their heads and agree with you, yet they aren’t acting on it.

Agnostics may support the cause in theory, but they can’t really be bothered (to vote, to donate, to volunteer, and so forth). On many issues (such as the environment), they are arguably the largest group. More importantly, Agnostics are the audience most likely to be influenced, as moving people to act (on their beliefs) is typically far easier than convincing them to change their minds. Yet often, we make two key mistakes in speaking with Agnostics as we:

1. Try to further “educate” them when they already know and agree.
2. Want them to “care more,” mistakenly assuming that this will lead to action.

These missteps are rooted in continued attempts to persuade or to motivate Agnostics when our goal should be to move them “from Intent to Action.” In other words, we should be thinking less about marketing — and more about behavioral science.

A good place to start is with Professor Richard Thaler’s mantra: ‘If you want people to do something, make it easy.’ Making it easy involves uncovering and removing the “micro-barriers” that prevent Agnostics from acting on their positive intentions. And in our experience, we’ve found that confusion and complexity are the most prevalent micro-barrier, as even quite small questions or frustrations often trigger people to “opt-out” of new activities. Thus, the goal should be to remove any unnecessary words or steps that lie between the person and the desired action.

Defaults (such as automatic registration and renewed giving) are an extreme version of this concept, as they eliminate the need for Agnostics to take any action. But simply reducing the number of “clicks” required to donate or volunteer has been shown to have a significant impact.

We often make the mistake of trying to further “educate” Agnostics -or we try to get them to “care more,” on the mistaken assumption that this will lead to action.

Of course, Easiness is only one of many human “heuristics” that can be leveraged to gently “nudge” positive behaviors. For example, to promote student registration and voting on university campuses, we’ve:

• Helped students to make a “voting plan” (of where/when they will vote) in advance, to reduce potential confusion and opt-out — and trigger a sense of Pre-Commitment
• Utilized contests, both between schools and among different student groups, to inject fun and emotion — and leverage the right Transmitters (i.e., friends, teammates, etc.)
• Increased salience (via campus signage, social media, and “I’ve voted” buttons) to serve as timely visual reminders — and activate Social Norms (i.e., “Everybody’s voting”)

The results have been impressive, as these efforts at the University of Chicago (via ChiVotes) led over 80% of the school’s undergraduates to register to vote in the 2018 mid-term elections.

In many areas, the key to further progress lies not in convincing Antagonists — nor even in further inspiring Advocates—but rather in moving Agnostics from Intent to Action.

Voting is only one area in which many Agnostics would like to “do the right thing” but require some help in moving from Intent to Action. For many other causes, the key to further progress lies not in convincing Antagonists — nor even in further motivating or inspiring Advocates — but rather in helping people act on their existing beliefs (by giving, volunteering, etc.). This will require directing efforts towards these Agnostics — and applying Behavioral Science tools and tactics to help them move from Intent to Action.

Advocates, Antagonists and Agnostics was originally published in Behavioral Design Hub on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Given the unmatched resources and reach of the private sector, there is clearly an opportunity to make a positive impact using behavioral science, both internally within companies and externally.

It’s estimated that U.S. companies alone spent roughly $90 billion on employee learning and development efforts in 2018. These training investments could surely be made more impactful, if better informed by and integrated with behavior change efforts.

Through their products and services, global multinationals can help their customers live healthier, make better financial decisions, and reduce their environmental impact, to name just a few areas. For instance, one of our clients at the BVA Nudge Unit, Procter & Gamble, serves nearly five billion people annually, which represents an enormous opportunity to make a positive impact on people’s daily lives.

A decade after the dawn of the behavioral science revolution, the private sector has only scratched the surface of this potential.

Yet a decade after the dawn of the behavioral science revolution, the private sector has only scratched the surface of this potential. Indeed, for every ten companies that express active interest in behavioral science, our experience is that perhaps one consistently applies it in their business. It seems that companies, just like individuals, can have difficulty converting their interest into specific initiatives.

Why is this the case? My colleagues and I would point to three interrelated factors:

First, a “paradox of choice” appears to be at work. Behavioral science can be applied to so many different issues and challenges (human resources, product development, marketing, etc.) that many companies just don’t know where to start.

Second, there’s a predictable level of resistance to anything new. While some managers and marketers strongly embrace behavioral science, others appear to view it an implicit threat or may dismiss it as set of tools that they can master in a day or two.

Third, there are structural challenges within organizations. Because many behavioral change efforts often cut across traditional departmental lines, it isn’t clear who should “own” specific projects or where budgets should be sourced.

Of course, there’s no single answer for overcoming these barriers. But while there’s been a good deal of emphasis at the strategic level on challenges such as where behavioral science should sit within the organization, there’s been less focus on finding the right opportunities. And in fact, the questions that we hear from firms regularly fall along these lines:

• Which types of challenges are best suited to apply behavioral science to?
• How do we know if a particular project or process is a good fit for behavioral science?
• How are behavioral science initiatives different from our existing marketing or communications efforts?

If you’re a manager who wants to bring behavioral science into your organization, answering these questions correctly is the key to finding the right opportunities. Here are three guidelines to help you start.

Begin with the business case

In a business context, pilot projects are more likely to get funded (and later recognized) if their financial impact can be clearly and easily quantified. Thus, we encourage clients to look for opportunities with clear, measurable ROI potential (most likely via cost savings or increased revenue).

For example, many hotel chains are losing millions in wasted food and energy use. This dollar figure helps frame (and justify) an investment in applying behavioral science to nudge guest behavior in ways that could reduce this waste, much of which is inadvertent.

This final point (that the waste is inadvertent) is important, as nudging should not require convincing or coercing people, nor tricking them into new behaviors against their wishes. Instead, the goal is to help them convert their (positive) intent into action.

There’s a simple way to help determine if behavioral science is the right tool to apply to a given situation. If an effort requires persuading people to change their opinions/beliefs (through education or information), it is likely a better fit for more traditional approaches (marketing, training, etc.). If an effort requires helping people to act on their existing opinions/beliefs, it is likely a good fit for behavioral science tools.

Define the behavioral change

For many clients, the most challenging step is viewing and defining their challenges through a behavioral lens. Often, they start with very broad objectives, such as “get more people to use our product,” and have difficultly articulating exactly which behaviors need to change. Yet the more narrowly managers can define desired changes (i.e., who does what differently), the more likely they are to succeed.

For an Italian digital payments company we worked with, ethnographic research revealed that the primary behavioral opportunity lay in moving people from cash to digital for their small, everyday transactions. This transition was not only a business opportunity for the company but also provided clear convenience and security for consumers. Ultimately, this led to specific nudges targeted to newsstand/kiosk environments, reminding customers of digital payment options and benefits at their point of decision.

Focus on “win-win-win” opportunities

Most importantly, we strongly encourage private sector clients to search for changes at the intersection of what’s good for the company, its customers, and society. While this vision may sound idealistic or simplistic, it is actually a strong and realistic foundation for building long-term customer relationships. And importantly, there are clear, accessible opportunities across all business sectors:

• In financial services, businesses can better help investors to save money and plan properly.
• In health care, organizations can help ensure that patients take their medicines as directed.
• In hospitality, hotels can help guests conserve energy and reduce waste.
• In consumer goods, marketers can help people eat healthier or exercise portion control.

It’s worth pausing on this final point. Adopting this “win-win-win” mentality is critical to the long-term adoption of behavioral science in the private sector, for several reasons:

• It directly addresses and helps mitigate ethical concerns and ensures behavioral science is associated with positive change, rather than manipulation.
• It helps to clearly distinguish behavioral science from traditional marketing/sales efforts, which are not necessarily rooted in the good of the consumer.
• It positions behavioral science as a catalyst for a more sustainable approach to business, which aims to serve the long-term needs of all stakeholders (and society).

Our larger goal as behavioral scientists and advisors should be to help private-sector companies recognize that applying behavioral science ethically is a formula for success.

Therefore, our larger goal as behavioral scientists and advisors should be to help private-sector companies recognize that applying behavioral science ethically is not just the right thing to do, nor a question of sacrificing short-term profit for good PR. It is a formula for success in a changing world, in which people are increasingly looking for meaning, purpose, and connection.

So as the behavioral science community enters a new decade, our collective resolution, when working in the private sector, should be to help businesses find the right projects — and to embrace a broader vision, grounded in driving positive behavioral change to their customers, employees, and society.

In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, organisations face an overwhelming array of communications challenges, including:

- Providing continuing support for customers and clients

- Effectively reassuring customers, employees, volunteers, donors and other stakeholders

- Encouraging positive new behaviours (for public safety, operations, fundraising, etc.)

By providing insight into our thinking and decision making processes, behavioural science can help ensure that these communications are properly understood and acted upon.

To that end, here are five (5) guidelines (via the acronym DRESS), which can serve as a starting point for applying behavioural science learning to optimise communications and encourage positive behaviours:

1. Default — The cardinal rule or mantra of behavioural science is to “make it easy.” If you make changes as easy as possible, customers and employees will be more likely to comply. Defaults are one way to apply this in practice: For example, if you want to encourage people to use digital self-help tools (rather than overwhelmed call centers), make the digital path the “default” — and ensure that it is as fast and simple as possible (via one-click approaches, etc.).
2. Reassure — While everyone is seeking reassurance, it is important to know that some well-intended messages can have unintended effects. For example, very specific references to health measures (i.e. “Our employees wash their hands every two hours”) can inadvertently raise questions and concerns (“Is every two hours often enough?”). Sometimes, it is best to remain more general (“We are following government-recommended protocols…”), while maintaining a positive, optimistic and realistic tone. For example, speaking of “when” we return to normal (rather than “if”).
3. Empathise — Remember to convey that measures taken are for the safety and ultimate benefit of your customers. clients and employees. They are going through a great deal right now and the focus of your messaging should be on their concerns, not on your challenges as organisational leaders.
4. Socialize — In this time of uncertainty, people want to feel part of a community and they take cues from the actions of others. This provides a sense of security and creates an opportunity to leverage “social norms” to drive positive behaviours. Thus, messaging that references others’ behaviour (“many people are donating and volunteering now, as they know that there is heightened demand”) will help encourage these positive actions.
5. Simplify — Because a great deal of customers and employees’ “cognitive load” is occupied with safety and family issues, they will be especially distracted. In addition, they will be bombarded with messages about coronavirus right now, many of which will sound similar. This means that your comms should be as brief and functional as possible — or they will not be read.

We hope that these initial guidelines are helpful.

Please reach out to scott.young@bvanudgeunit.com if you would like further help with your crisis-related communications, as BVA Nudge Unit is assisting organisations on a pro-bono basis.

COVID-19 has obviously had an enormous negative impact on our society and our personal lives. However, this crisis has also forced us into several positive behaviours.

One notable example is hygiene: Levels of hand washing and cleaning are presumably well above pre-crisis levels. If this can be maintained, the health benefits will be significant, as proper hygiene is known to reduce transmission of many diseases.

However, we also know that people find it quite hard to maintain proper hygiene consistently. This raises an important question and challenge:

How can we encourage both individuals and organisations to extend positive behaviours beyond the immediate crisis?

Behavioural science suggests three strategies to help establish healthy actions as the new normal.

🖼 RE-FRAMING

Today, our actions (tied to hand washing, cleaning and social distancing) are understandably driven by the COVID-19 crisis. While this was necessary to drive immediate behaviour change, it’s also quite limiting: It suggests that once the immediate crisis is over, we can revert. Thus, healthy actions need to be gradually re-framed in the broader context of health, sustainability and necessity. For example, hand washing could be promoted in terms of taking care of yourself, your family and your community from disease (rather than simply in terms of avoiding COVID-19).

Hotels, restaurants and visitor attractions will almost certainly need to enhance their levels of hygiene, in order to reassure and draw back guests. Already, we’ve seen numerous mailings, such as this one from Marriott, announcing its “Commitment to Cleanliness” programme. Ideally, policies of this nature should be framed as a new norm (and linked to extended commitments, backed by external certification and monitoring systems).

🛠 RE-ENFORCING

When it comes to hygiene and public health, the vast majority of individuals (and companies) sincerely want to do the right thing, both to protect themselves and be respectful to others. Therefore, we don’t need to be lectured or convinced. Instead, people need to be reminded, ideally at the exact moment of decision. To do so, we need highly visible cues in physical environments (entrances, doors, washrooms, etc.) that trigger and re-enforce these desired behaviours. In addition, these nudges need to be regularly updated, so that they remain salient.

BVA Nudge Unit recently developed a series of signage and visual cues on behalf of a major utility, designed to reassure employees and to promote safe behaviours (such as hand washing and social distancing) as offices re-open. These efforts will be reviewed on a monthly basis, to detect signs of wear-out and trigger changes in design and messaging.

🎁 REWARDING

With hygiene behaviours (such as hand washing and cleaning), we all face a common (and challenging) cost/benefit equation:

• The action requires an immediate sacrifice of sorts (via the time/effort invested)
• The potential benefit is less instantaneous and more uncertain (not getting sick)

Today, this trade-off is acceptable to most people, because the fear of catching the virus is quite strong (and the required actions are modest). Similarly, many organisations now view enhanced cleaning standards and procedures as a necessity (to reassure employees and re-attract customers).

However, once the direct threat recedes, this equation will change — and compliance is likely to decline. To mitigate this, we need to provide people with immediate positive reinforcement, tied to the desired behaviour. While this reward may be quite modest, the goal is to create a positive association (perhaps just a smile) which helps reinforce the action, both now and well beyond the current crisis.

While many organisations provide long-term rewards for their customers (frequent guest programmes, etc.), more immediate feedback strategies are needed to promote specific positive behaviours (such as hygiene or sustainability), among both guests and employees. Here, we’ve seen that gamification strategies (leveraging our ubiquitous phones, rewarding points, making it fun, etc.) can be effective.

♻️ Turning Routines into Habits

Ultimately, our goal (with both individuals and organisations) is to turn positive routines into long-term habits. While these terms are often used interchangeably, there is an important distinction:

• Routines require thought and effort
• Habits are largely automatic

Today, hand washing is arguably a habit for most people after using the washroom, akin to brushing our teeth before bedtime. And extensive washing, every time we eat, buy groceries or re-enter our homes is more likely a conscious routine, which is becoming a subconscious habit through repetition over the past several months.

Cleaning is more naturally a routine, which means that it will always require some thought (on a personal level) and dedicated processes and monitoring (on a business level). Yet it can also become a habit for households and employees, through a combination of re-framing, reinforcing and rewarding (and perhaps social norms). For example, at the Audi plant in Brussels, break times have been extended, as a time dedicated for all workers to wash their hands.

Amidst all of its damage and disruption, the coronavirus has created a unique opportunity for society to “raise its game” on hygiene. But if we are to drive sustained improvements, we’ll need to think beyond this crisis and to apply Behavioural Science to help embed positive habits, among both individuals and organisations.

For more information on how to turn positive routines into long-term habits, please reach out to Scott Young at scott.young@bva-group.com or visit our website www.bvanudgeunit.com to read our blog posts and white papers.

Moving from Routine to Habit was originally published in Behavioral Design Hub on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.