Greetings All! I hope that you are enjoying the holiday season so far.
This posting is actually in response to several postings over the past
week or so in the thread "changing another person". I will try and bring
in relevant comments from different members of the list as I progress.
In LO20040, John Gunkler wrote:
>People "get changed" by other people without permission (and often
>without knowing it) all the time!...That's how "mob rule" can take over
>people at times and result in individuals doing things that are counter
>even to their most deeply held moral values. On a slightly more benign
>scale, it's fundamentally the basis of advertising. ...snip...
To which Bill Braun responded in LO20059:
>John, if "people 'get changed' by other people without permission (and
>often without knowing it) all the time" explains how crowds turn into
>mobs, what explains crowds that don't turn into mobs? I would argue that
>everyone always acts in self interest (not equal to selfish) and will
>respond, or not, to "getting changed" based on their assessment of the
>benefits of doing so. ...snip...
In order to share my perspective on how Bill's questions might be answered
(and some other comments by Bill and others addressed), I am going to use
the "ABC" model of behavior that I posed in a previous post (see LO19894).
I think that, by applying its perspective here, I may be able to
illustrate the effectiveness of the model for understanding and explaining
behavior and the importance of adopting the perspective in order to see
the "levers for change".
By examining behavior, the events and conditions immediately preceding it
(antecedents) and the outcomes that are produced by it (consequences), I
believe that some of the confusion as to when and how "people get changed"
can be reduced. First, to John's example of "mob rule", in such a
situation, the behavior of the mob around the individual provide both the
antecedent conditions for "irrational" and even "self destructive"
behavior (including behavior that is in contradiction with the deepest
moral values that the individual holds) and provide the consequences
immediately to reinforce it when it occurs.
The ABC model of behavior is a dynamic one (read "open system of behavior"
- more on this to come). The consequences for one behavior can become an
antecedent for the next one. In the "mob rule" context, the individual
gets caught up in a cycle in which these irrational behaviors are
prompted, acted out, and then immediately reinforced. Incidentally, this
is not necessarily a conscious choice, although it may be. Indeed, if the
individual took pause to consider ALL of the potential resulting
consequences, they would likely not participate. We often do this in our
planning activities and this can certainly influence our ability to make a
"rational" decision which is in our best, self interest. However, in many
situations, the weight given to the immediate consequences relative to
potential future consequences is great enough, that, for all intents and
purposes, the future consequences are ignored. Even in our legal system,
we take this into account. In order for first degree murder to be
considered as a charge, we must be able to prove intent. Crimes that are
committed in the heat of the moment do not meet the criteria and are
treated as less severe than crimes that are planned ahead of time.
This same perspective allows us to understand all kinds of "irrational"
behavior, such as unsafe sex, marital unfaithfulness, smoking, failure to
stick to a diet, drug addiction, breaking those New Years resolutions,
etc... In each case, the reinforcer that sustains the "irrational"
behavior is a consequence that is positive, immediate, and certain to
result. All of the "downsides", IF they occur, will happen in the future.
While the positives that result if the behaviors aren't engaged in are
typically valued by the individual much more highly when viewed at a
distance (the choice of either behavior is in the future), the positive,
certain and immediate reinforcers available at the moment of choice result
in the "irrartional" behavior being selected. This is one reason why we
will often say one thing and do another. When the moment of choice is not
at hand, "rational" consideration of all of the consequences is possible.
At the moment of choice, however, all of this may go out the window and
the positive, immediate and certain consequence most often wins out.
In the case of the crowd that doesn't make the transition to Mob, the
reinforcers are either not occurring at a sufficient rate, or with
sufficient immediacy to interrupt and "overrule" the consideration of the
consequences which are delayed, but will also result. The bottom line is
that Bill's explanation of "self interest" as the "cause" for acting is
true to a point, but behavior is more clearly understood by examining the
reinforcers available immediately at the moment of choice.
Bill Braun also wrote:
>If I derive a benefit from generosity of spirit and the "change agent is
>advocating a harsh position, I won't be changed. How I respond has more
>to do with the congruence of the change agent with my current mental model
>than anything else.
Maybe this will surprise you, but I absolutely agree with Bill's statement
here. The reason for my agreement has to do with the fact that, in
situations such as the one described above, the means of influence used
(which would be the equivalent of what John Gunkler referred to in his
post as persuasion by talking or writing) actually has nothing to do with
the consequences of behavior. This is an attempt to use an antecedent
intervention to influence behavior. An antecedent may serve to prompt, or
cue, a behavior, but it can never "cause" or sustain a behavior.
Antecedents, by definition, occur before the desired behavior has taken
place. The ability of an antecedent, such as persuasion, to influence the
initiation of a behavior is only effective TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT IS
PAIRED WITH A MEANINGFUL CONSEQUENCE. In the case of many change agents,
antecedent means of influence are the only means of which we may avail
ourselves in our attempts to influence others. We often have very little
at our disposal that we may provide as a reinforcer for the behavior if it
occurs. In addition, many attempts of a change agent to provide
reinforcement are further confounded by the fact that we are rarely around
when the behaviors are taking place. Hence the "decay of delay" works
against us as well. In such a situation, the best a change agent can hope
for is for the suggested behavior to be attempted once (maybe twice).
Whether or not it will continue is dependent on the consequences which
follow the behavior.
Fred Nickols wrote in LO20060:
>On my part, I believe that every human being is in absolute control of his
>or her own behavior. That said, can someone put a gun to my head and
>coerce me into doing something I wouldn't ordinarily do? Of course, but
>in the last analysis I am the one doing the doing.
Here is a perfect example of an antecedent (gun to head with demand being
made) that is very effectively paired with a consequence (a negative,
IMMEDIATE, certain consequence). As Fred points out, the likelihood that
this antecedent will be successful at influencing behavior is very high.
This also illustrates what I described in my previous post on behavioral
psychology as negative reinforcement. The behavior that results,
compliance with the demand, is often referred to as escape or avoidance
behavior. We will work to reduce or remove (avoid) the aversive condition
(antecedent), and no more. As soon as the threat is removed, the behavior
which it "motivates" will stop.
Bill Braun, again replying to John Gunkler, wrote:
>You make a good argument [with] respect to advertising though for its
>incremental
>effects on mental models. Nevertheless, for so long as Advertiser X
>promotes its products on Talk Show Z, I'll never buy its products
>regardless. Conversely, I'll respond readily to merchants located in my
>town, will go to great lengths to support those merchants and will
>steadfastly refuse to patronize any other merchants (unless the goods or
>services I seek are unavailable locally).
I would like to point out that the first case, advertising, is also a case
of an antecedent that is attempting to prompt a behavior (purchasing a
product). Even if Bill were to watch the advertisement, the best it could
hope to do is prompt him to purchase the product once (maybe twice).
Then, his future purchasing behavior is much more likely to be influenced
by the consequences that result from trying the product. If he enjoys the
product, or it meets his need well, he is more likely to purchase it a
gain (he has been positively reinforced). In many situations, advertising
(an antecedent) does play a critical role in the success of a company in
marketing its products, especially in relatively big ticket items that are
not purchase frequently. If a company gets you to try their product once,
they will have captured your business for maybe a 5 year period.
In the second part of the snip from Bill Braun, he speaks of his loyalty
to local merchants. Here his purchase behavior is more frequent. And, as
he mentions, he is unlikely to switch his purchasing to another merchants.
In this case, far more than an antecedent such as advertising is at work.
His purchasing behavior has been reinforced positively (resulted in an
outcome or consequence that he found positive), and other antecedents that
attempt to influence his purchasing behavior become powerless in
comparison. This reinforcement is added to his reinforcement history
(learning) and subtly changes his mental model.
In attempts to influence others, the majority of those who have responded
to this thread seem to only be comfortable providing antecedents to
change, but become increasingly uncomfortable with providing consequences
that support/reinforce behaviors when they occur. This allows us to be
soothed by the fact that the choice to change is in the hands of the
individual, and is not forced or manipulated by us. This, is in fact,
true, but as Fred Nickols points out, it is in fact always true. Even
adopting a behaviorist perspective, the individual can never be forced to
behave in a given way (depending on the type of reinforcement we provide -
negative vs. positive - they may not feel that they had much choice, but
this is another issue), we can only increase or decrease the likelihood
that it will occur again.
Maybe some of this will become clearer if I try and make explicit how
closely the behaviorist perspective actual parallels a systemic
understanding of organizations. Four of the five Disciplines to which
Senge refers are antecedents interventions for systemic change, at least
at in a system larger than 1 person (personal mastery, mental models,
shared vision, team learning). The practice of these disciplines help to
set the stage for systemic change. But alone, they will not make it work.
It takes the understanding of consequences and feedback to the whole
system to complete the package. The quantum leap forward in understanding
how to change systems ("Give me a lever long enough...and single handedly,
I can move the world) comes with The Fifth Discipline - systems thinking.
SYSTEMS THINKING IS ALL ABOUT CONSEQUENCES AND FEEDBACK, JUST LIKE THE
BEHAVIORIST PERSPECTIVE. In many situations, both camps even use the
exact same words and eerily similar definitions. I would like to propose
that Senge would be a flaming behaviorist if he only understood closely it
parallels systems thinking, and how much it would enhance the ability to
implement it. And most of you who either have or are trying to adopt a
systems perspective would be flaming behaviorists too - although you may
deny it now.
On page 73 of the Fifth Discipline, Senge says,
>The essence of the discipline of systems thinking lies in a shift of mind:
>-seeing interrelationships rather than linear cause-effect chains, and
>-seeing processes of change rather than snapshots
>The practice of systems thinking starts with understanding a simple
>concept called "feedback" that shows how actions can REINFORCE
>(my emphasis) or counteract (balance each other). ...snip...
If you substitute "behaviorist perspective" for systems thinking, the
statements above would remain just as true. What I have been trying to
show is that the consequences that follow behavior form the basis of
feedback (in the systemic sense) that will either reinforce or counteract
behavior. Remember from my previous post on the behaviorist perspective
that consequences that follow behavior either strengthen/reinforce the
behavior (positive and negative reinforcement) or weaken/balance it
(extinction and punishment). The behaviorist perspective then becomes the
"systems thinking" lens for seeing the feedback loops that influence
behavior. Examining the consequences for behavior reveals the structure of
the system that influences behavior.
On page 75 of the Fifth Discipline, Senge further defines feedback:
>[Feedback] means any reciprocal flow of influence. In systems thinking
>it is an axiom that every influence is both *cause* and *effect*. Nothing
>is ever influenced in just one direction. ...snip...
Consequences from a behavioral perspective satisfy this definition nicely.
I mentioned previously that consequences are both the outcome that results
from the behavior (the *effect*) and that which influences the future
occurrence of the behavior (the *cause*).
Without systems thinking, our understanding of behavior is fundamentally
flawed (see chapter 2 of the Fifth Discipline, Does your organization have
a learning disability?). As Senge illustrates so well in the Beer Game
(chapter 3), delayed consequences and the feedback that they provide are
universally ignored in the demonstration, resulting in wild variations in
ordering behavior and eventually huge amounts of excess inventory. In
this case, the respondents are influenced by the urgent need to AVOID
running out of beer and fail to step back and see the structure of the
larger system (a classic negative reinforcement paradigm in the behavioral
sense). The delayed consequences are not considered and are ignored.
This directly parallels the "decay of delay" which I have tried to
illustrate above from a behavioral understanding of behavior. The system
of behavior is plagued by the same problems. Without the illumination of
the behavioral perspective, we will never understand the true dynamics of
behavior - we are limited in the same way that we cannot understand the
dynamics of organizational systems without the aid of systems thinking.
A negative reinforcement paradigm is essentially an example of a Shifting
the Burden systems archetype. In the short term, the situation seems to
improve - we (the influencer) get more of what we want (desired behavior)
by using aversive methods, and are therefore positively reinforced for
using them (we are more likely to use them in the future). However, along
with this method of influence comes a bunch of baggage that will
fundamentally limit the amount of performance that we can expect (a
balancing system). However, these consequences are delayed in time and
space from the use of negative reinforcement and so we don't see the
connection. Over time, the original symptoms which we are trying to
address with a short term fix return with a vengeance, and we can't figure
out why.
I could go on and on about the parallels, but I think that I have probably
overstayed my welcome already. I think that between my earlier posting in
LO19894 and the present post I have armed the interested person with
enough "food for thought that they may be able to make even more
connections on their own. Maybe its a little bold for me to assert that
the behaviorist perspective is the Sixth Discipline necessary to sustain
the learning organization (in my heart of hearts, I do believe this), but
it is at least Discipline 5.5.
In closing, I will cite the Laws of the Fifth Discipline as outlined by
Senge in chapter 4 of the Fifth Discipline and ask you to see how many of
these you can account for from your understanding of the behavioral
perspective:
1) Today's problems come from yesterday's "solutions".
2) The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.
3) Behavior grows better before it grows worse.
4) The easy way out usually leads back in.
5) The cure can be worse than the disease.
6) Faster is slower.
7) Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space.
8) Small changes can produce big results - but the areas of highest
leverage are often the least obvious.
9) You can have your cake and eat it too - but not at once.
10) Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.
11) There is no blame.
All of them can be accounted for in the behaviorist perspective.
Regards,
Jon Krispin
--"Jon Krispin" <jkrispin@prestolitewire.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>