Behaviour

Of course you can, but the old dog has to want to learn them!

But then isn’t personality set? Well roughly yes, and from a pretty early age; personality is the result of the interaction between genetic conditions and environmental conditions and can be represented in this way: P = (GxE). This means that from an early age our personalities are set and basically don’t change. Sure I can provide lots of clinical data to back up this assertion but hey just go to a school reunion! Sure they may be balder or fatter but they are just the same, aren’t they?

Behaviour on the other hand is a result of the interaction between personality and situation and can be represented in this way: B = (PxS). Therefore change the situation and we are all capable of modifying our behaviour, to a greater or lesser extent. And this makes it difficult to hide behind the genetics argument because if we choose we can change our behaviour. This also means there are no such things as personality clashes, or any reason why we can’t choose a different path.

In his book ‘Life at the bottom’ Theodore Dalrymple confronts a drugs user who claims: “It’s not my fault I am easily led.” Theodore replies: “Then how come you haven’t been easily led to conjugating Latin verbs, or to study higher Maths?” You see we like the determinism argument (ie that every event is the inevitable consequence of previous conditions) when it suits us.

I think the deeper issue is to find a reason why someone would want to change; and that is far more difficult. I have no problem with the person who says: ‘I’m happy how I am, I understand the negative consequences of not changing and I accept them.’ But I rarely hear that. What I hear are the rationalising arguments: ‘it’s not my fault,’ ‘that’s just how I am made,’ ‘I can’t change now, it’s too late,’ ‘my personality is set!’

So how do you get someone to change? Back to our old dogs, they need to want to change. As Confucius said ‘change is a door that can only be opened from the inside,’ (mind you he also said ‘experience is a comb given to a bald man.’) So it is usually up to us to find the reasons - and there are so many (as many as there are people). A few examples:

‘Altruism,’ (ie it is the right thing to do)
‘Improve your stock,’ (ie if you improve it will be better for your people and you’ll be better thought of as a leader within the organization)
‘These are career-limiting behaviours’ (ie we’ll sack you if you don’t improve)
‘Odd one out’ (ie everyone else in the team is showing progression and you’re not)
‘Look at him’ (ie point to the tangible benefits in someone else)
‘Cementing’ (ie keep on doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep on getting what you’re getting, you’ll become known for the behaviours and so will keep getting the same old projects/tasks)
‘It will make life easier’ (appeal to laziness)

Often the most difficult issue is convincing folks development isn’t about changing what is intrinsically you, it isn’t about taking things away but adding to your armoury, and it will give you a greater array of choices, options and dimensions. The Latin root of the word ‘education’ is ‘e-ducato,’ which means ‘leading out.’ So it is not about trying to be like someone or something else (not possible nor desirable) or cramming your head full of the latest consultant’s nonsense; it is about bringing out the best in you, ie becoming a better version of you.
 

General George Patton was asked, in 1944 how he ‘wins hearts and minds.’ His answer is legendary and witty, but also incredibly profound. Patton said: ‘Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.’ Now sure this may sound a little crude and crass but what he is saying is that behaviour will determine attitude, and that is a wise and insightful viewpoint.

We were asked by the world’s largest manufacturer of architectural ironmongery to create a customer-centric culture. Previously they’d tried all the ‘attitudinal changing,’ trite methods of pictures of happy customers, and statements like ‘customers pay our wages,’ and ‘awe-inspiring’ posters of tired-inspired people who had just climbed a mountain for the first time, covered in snow and glory. So no problem with square inches of inspiration on walls but ‘winning the hearts and minds,’ especially of the senior team, was a far more difficult task.

The senior team knew all the arguments: happy customers mean repeat business, happy customers act as advocates by telling other people how good your company is and building a relationship means that doing business is less transactional and price-sensitive; indeed they could make those convincing arguments to others. But the difference was, they couldn’t actually ‘feel’ it because they had no direct experience.

Attitudes have three main components: cognitive, (which is about our beliefs) affective, (which is about our feelings) and behavioural (how we act towards the attitude object). Getting attitude to change behaviour is really difficult because we intellectualise, post-rationalise, make excuses - anything rather than accept the logic. However by effecting changes in behaviour we often find that attitude follows suit. So why is that? We call it ‘cognitive dissonance,’ which argues that people prefer their beliefs and feelings to be consistent with each other and with their behaviour so when inconsistencies occur people become uncomfortable and have to adapt; but how do they adapt? Think about someone whose cognition is ‘I smoke’, who is bombarded with messages ‘smoking kills.’ The obvious corollary to this is that they give up smoking; but they don’t do they? They either discount the evidence or adopt the irrational belief that smoking won’t harm them personally or promise themselves that they will give up on Monday - or the end of the month, or after the summer holidays; anything rather than give up.

So back to our architectural ironmongery organisation; what did we do? Well what we did was initiate a policy, (not a policy, oh yeah a ‘policy.’) Every single senior manager, including all board members, had to personally (personally mind) handle four customer complaints a month, including personal follow-up with the customer. Thus the CEO had to show up at a DIY store in Glasgow and get a ‘severe telling off,’ (as they say in Glasgow) from the store owner; that is truly the sharp end of ‘customer experience.’ And do you know, all of a sudden, customer service really did become important to the organisation and the senior team suddenly became its strongest advocates. Why? Because, like Patton said (perhaps a little more coarsely), having had a direct experience, their behaviour determined their attitude.