Archive for the ‘Behaviour Change’ Category

Celebrating failure

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

Many of us are talking about the lessons and insights that emerge from failure. So this is an invitation. Add a comment about your failures and what you learned about evaluation of behaviour change.

Here’s one from facilitation to get us started, about my failure to practice the principle of letting the group do the work. I was working with a large and diverse group that was trying to determine the content of a new approach to operating. Instead of letting them get on with it, I facilitated a process with them where I became attached to the content, which meant I started manipulating how the group worked with that content. I soon noticed some participants disengaging from the process to varying degrees – some completely (by leaving) and others by being present physically, but not in any other way. The whole process, including content, had become mine, not theirs. So I put the pens down and stepped away, saying something like, “over to you now”. And I left the room. When I returned they had worked out what needed to be done without me and were getting on with it. A lesson for me to continue the practice of getting the group to do the work.

How about you? What have been your lessons from failure?

Viv McWaters

Show Me the Change Conference begins

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

IMG_2493As I sit here it’s mid-afternoon on the first day on the long-anticipated Show Me the Change Conference. About 180 people have gathered in Melbourne to explore topics and pose questions, share ideas and tools around evaluating behaviour change. I’ve met people with a wealth of experience and others bring new enthusiasm; there’s conversations of all shapes and sizes; there’s the usual challenges of working in large groups.

Chris Corrigan opened space this afternoon and about 40 topics went up on the wall to be discussed today and tomorrow. I can sense more topics brewing.

While many people have experienced Open Space as a process before, for many people it’s their first open space gathering. Open space taps into people’s passion around the topic and enables them to set the agenda (rather than a designated group pre-determining what everyone wants to talk about/listen to). Open space is an example of complexity in action.

Every now and again it’s good to be reminded about what makes open space work. Many of us try and intellectualise too much, and make it more complicated than it needs to be. Harrison Owen reminds us about the four principles and one law of open space, and what these mean in terms of the practice of open space in our lives and organisations.

The Principles:
Whoever comes are the right people
Whatever happens is the only thing that could have
Be prepared to be surprised!
Whenever it starts is the right time
When it’s over, it’s over.

The Law of Two Feet
If, at any time, you find yourself in a place where you are not contributing or not learning, then use your two feet and go somewhere else.

In response to a comment on the Open Space List regarding internalising these principles and law, Harrison Owen, wrote the following. I think there’s great wisdom in this.

I suspect that it is more a matter of remembering what we already know and for one reason or another have chosen to repress. All of this goes with the idea that Open Space is truly not something new and radically different. In fact it is a forceful confrontation with a pre-existing condition. We are already in Open Space by virtue of the fact that we have forever been in a self organizing world (the usual 13.7 billion years stuff).

The Law and the Principles are descriptive of normative behavior in a self organizing world, and therefore Open Space, I think. In short, we do all of the above all the time — unfortunately we usually feel guilty about it, and because of this, we tend to do it/them badly, or at least awkwardly and grudgingly. Thus with the Law: when faced with a nonproductive situation (no learning, no contribution) we always leave (hearts and mind out the window) — but the body remains feeling miserable, and making others miserable as well. Once we get the picture, things work better, and we feel a lot better. But it is not about doing something new, or internalizing some new truth — but rather remembering what we already knew and doing what we should/could have been doing in the first place.

Why bother with all this? Well if nothing else, I think it makes our job as consultants and facilitators a lot easier. First of all we are not inviting our clients to engage in risky behavior. Quite the opposite, we are opening a space in which they can really be themselves. And the real risk is to continue with the non-productive, guilt inducing, dependant behavior. The old Marxist Battle Cry might have some application here (with modification): People of the World Unite — You have nothing to lose but your chains.” In a word — Be yourself!

Hear, hear!

Viv McWaters

Between Memory and Experience

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

I recently watched this TED Talk by Daniel Kahneman – he won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his pioneering work in behavioral economics.

The key takeaway for me was the disconnect between ‘experience’ and ‘memory’. This got me thinking about all sorts of contexts, from own happiness to the implications for evaluating behaviour change. At the TED website they describe his presentation as …

Using examples from vacations to colonoscopies, Nobel laureate and founder of behavioral economics Daniel Kahneman reveals how our “experiencing selves” and our “remembering selves” perceive happiness differently. This new insight has profound implications for economics, public policy — and our own self-awareness.

After I watched the presentation, I sat down to write this blog post and struggled to document what I was thinking. This post was destined to live a long life in the ‘draft’ folder … then I emailed the link to Irene Guijt (Evaluation Revisited Conference) … who passed it onto Dave Snowden (Cognitive Edge) … and then Dave wrote this post – Between Memory & Experience. Dave writes …

“Seeing the future as anticipated memories is an interesting side idea from the talk. Now there is nothing new here (although its well presented) but its an important reminder in relationship to issues of narrative research.”

Here’s the video – see what connections you can make between the findings and the real world.

I recently watched this TED Talk by Daniel Kahneman – he won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his pioneering work in behavioral economics.

The key takeaway for me was the disconnect between ‘experience’ and ‘memory’. This got me thinking about all sorts of contexts, from own happiness to the implications for evaluating behaviour change. At the TED website they describe his presentation as …

Using examples from vacations to colonoscopies, Nobel laureate and founder of behavioral economics Daniel Kahneman reveals how our “experiencing selves” and our “remembering selves” perceive happiness differently. This new insight has profound implications for economics, public policy — and our own self-awareness.

After I watched the presentation, I sat down to write this blog post and struggled to document what I was thinking. This post was destined to live a long life in the ‘draft’ folder … then I emailed the link to Irene Guijt (Evaluation Revisited Conference) … who passed it onto Dave Snowden (Cognitive Edge) … and then Dave wrote this post – Between Memory & Experience. Dave writes …

“Seeing the future as anticipated memories is an interesting side idea from the talk. Now there is nothing new here (although its well presented) but its an important reminder in relationship to issues of narrative research.”

Here’s the video – see what connections you can make between the findings and the real world.

I recently watched this TED Talk by Daniel Kahneman – he won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his pioneering work in behavioral economics.

The key takeaway for me was the disconnect between ‘experience’ and ‘memory’. This got me thinking about all sorts of contexts, from own happiness to the implications for evaluating behaviour change. At the TED website they describe his presentation as …

Using examples from vacations to colonoscopies, Nobel laureate and founder of behavioral economics Daniel Kahneman reveals how our “experiencing selves” and our “remembering selves” perceive happiness differently. This new insight has profound implications for economics, public policy — and our own self-awareness.

After I watched the presentation, I sat down to write this blog post and struggled to document what I was thinking. This post was destined to live a long life in the ‘draft’ folder … then I emailed the link to Irene Guijt (Evaluation Revisited Conference) … who passed it onto Dave Snowden (Cognitive Edge) … and then Dave wrote this post – Between Memory & Experience. Dave writes …

“Seeing the future as anticipated memories is an interesting side idea from the talk. Now there is nothing new here (although its well presented) but its an important reminder in relationship to issues of narrative research.”

Here’s the video – see what connections you can make between the findings and the real world.

If so much change occurs through word of mouth, how do we evaluate it?

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

There is general agreement that word of mouth marketing is a critical element of changing behaviour. Whether it is a family member, colleague, neighbour, or friend, we are more likely to take on the advice and behaviours that are modelled by those we trust. This is the basis of effective communication (think also of the 6 degrees of separation experiment). Mark Earls, the author of Herd: how to change mass behaviour by harnessing our true nature provides great examples of how social networks are key to changing mass behaviour.

Mark recently posted a blog about how important it is to understand social networks.

Mark notes: Social networks are not channels for advertisers or for the adverts/memes you, your clients or any of your so-called “influentials” create, social networks are for all of the people who participate in the network.

So if word of mouth is an element of your behaviour change program (as it should be), how can you track its spread, and find out whom the key people are in networks? Well, social network analysis is one way! So what is a social network analysis?

Andrew Rixon, from Babelfish Group, notes in an e-booklet on enhancing collaboration that Social Network Analysis is the technique of analysing roles and social networks…. The outcomes of social network analysis provides surprising and insightful results allowing structure(s) to become visible and discussable.

Making such networks visible should surely be one of the goals of  evaluation. In this way, for those who have read Gladwell’s Tipping Point, you can find out who the mavens, connectors and salesmen are.

Interested in finding out more on Social Network Analysis?

Andrew Rixon will be holding a post-conference workshop on this very topic, so check out the program of post conference workshops and register online.

What's a circus got to do with evaluation of behaviour change?

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

iStock_000008780927We’re having our conference dinner at the National Institute of Circus Arts in Prahran. It’s an amazing space and the circus students will be providing entertainment throughout the night.

The dinner itself is designed to enable continuing conversations and building of relationships. That’s because one of the key principles underpinning Show Me The Change is “conversations first, relationships, then transactions”. Why? Simply because transactions without a foundation of relationship are doomed to failure at worst, compliance at best.

The circus has transformed itself, from the use (and abuse) of animals to modern theatre, that still applies the ancient improvisation of clowning and physical theatre. It’s this transformation that is of interest to us as evaluators of behaviour change in complexity, and the concept of liminal space, that is so well articulated in the trapeze.

I wrote about liminal space here. Here’s a part of that post.

When you’re asking me to change a particular behaviour (even if it’s for my own good, or for the well-being of others, or even the planet) you’re asking me to let go of something familiar and take up something unfamilar. That space between letting go and grabbing on to something new is called liminal space. You’re asking me to enter a space of unknowing, of uncertaintly and of change. Is it any wonder I’m reluctant?

I’m more likely to enter liminal space if I think it’s OK, if I feel safe, and have some idea of what I’ll be grabbing onto. Think of it this way. If you were a trapeze artist, would you let go of the bar if there was no safety net and no-one on the other trapeze to catch you? Or if the trapeze is a bit of a stretch for you, think of monkey bars at the playground. Spend some time watching kids playing on them. There you can see liminal space in action. It’s not possible to make any progress on monkey bars unless you let go of one bar before grabbing hold of the next one. In fact, that’s probably an even better analogy for behavior change, because on the monkey bars, you usually hedge your bets – holding on to the previous bar with one hand while grabbing the next one with the other. Sooner or later though you STILL have to LET GO to progress.

So in our behaviour change programs, what are we asking people to let go of and how are we supporting them in liminal space?

So I’m looking forward to some great conversations and some great entertainment at the circus on Tuesday May 6. How about you? Click here to book for this great dinner.

Viv McWaters

When evaluation reinforces the status quo

Friday, April 9th, 2010

I see a lot of similarities between behaviour change interventions for sustainability and international development assistance. Both fields seek to intervene to change participants’ behaviours, and generally this is done through a linear model of cause and effect, where the intervention is evaluated as the sole agent of change. In a recent post on complexity and development, Ben Ramalingam highlights a recent publication by Olivier Serrat, Head of Knowledge Management at the Asian Development Bank:

Development is a complex, adaptive process but—with exceptions—development work has not been conducted as such… development assistance often follows a linear approach to achieving outputs and outcomes……Any planning process is based on assumptions—some will be predictable, others wishful. If the assumptions are based on invalid theories of change (including cause-and-effect relationships) and on inappropriate tools, methods, and approaches derived from those, development agencies jeopardize the impacts they seek to realize.

In terms of evaluation, the risk is not solely that we jeopardise the impacts, but that we choose evaluation methods that will seek out what we want to show, whether this has actually occurred or not. If we are intent on showing a particular change, it is quite easy to (inadvertently or not) seek out what we (want to) believe actually happened, and by doing this we reinforce the perpetuation of behaviour change interventions that may not be all that successful. And in doing this we reinforce the status quo, rather than move towards better practices that account for complexity.

Here’s a nice quote from Aaron Levenstein to keep in mind:
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

How expectations shape behaviour

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

In this interesting study on how other people’s expectations shape us, the researchers found that other people’s expectations about us directly affect how we behave.

Understanding that other people’s expectations about us directly and immediately affect our behaviour is a vital component in understanding how we can come to be quite different people across various social situations.

I leave you with one final thought: in the real world two people are influencing each other continuously, trying to live up (or down) to each other’s expectations. Of course we only have direct control over our own expectations of others, so one implication of this study is that by changing our expectations of others we can actually change their behaviour for worse or, should we choose, for the better.

The effect may be subtle, but it’s a powerful realisation that other people’s behaviour is partly derived from how we view them, just as our behaviour is partly derived from how others view us.

I wonder what role our expectations of people involved in behaviour change programs affects the outcomes?

Viv

Using fun for behaviour change

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

Here are three resources which have recently crossed my path that involve using fun and games for social change.  Some of these work with groups and some work across social spaces – demographics, communities or organizations.  What I like about these games is that they provide a built in set of measureables that can be used to gauge progress and evaluate behaviour change.  Sesms like combining fun, visible change and simple yet powerful standards for noticing shift is the holy grail in this kind of work.

Games for Change: Games for Change (G4C) is a non-profit which seeks to harness the extraordinary power of video games to address the most pressing issues of our day, including poverty, education, human rights, global conflict and climate change. G4C acts as a voice for the transformative power of games, bringing together organizations and individuals from the nonprofit sector, government, journalism, academia, industry and the arts, to grow the sector and provide a platform for the exchange of ideas and resources.


The Fun Theory:  We’ve blogged this before, but The Fun Theory is “dedicated to the thought that something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better. Be it for yourself, for the environment, or for something entirely different, the only thing that matters is that it’s change for the better.”

The FreeChild Project: Lots of games and resources at this website dedictaed to youth engagement around social change.  FreeChild has been working for almost eight years to promote the idea that when engaged in meaningful ways throughout society, the knowledge, action and wisdom of children and youth can make the world more democratic, more non-violent and engaging for everyone. By working with adults as allies young people learn, teach and lead democracy throughout society!

Action & change challenge

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

The US National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation has just released a report on democratic governance. The action and change challenge is of particular interest:

More and more people are coming to realize that addressing the major challenges of our time is dependent on our ability to collectively move to a new level of thinking about those challenges, and that dialogic and deliberative processes help people make this leap.  Yet we continually struggle with how best to link dialogue and deliberation with action and change, and with the misperception that dialogue and deliberation are “just talk.”

You can download the full report here, or download a 3-page overview here.

Sandy Heierbacher, author of the report, also highlights a couple of promising frameworks.

Maggie Herzig’s Virtuous and Vicious Cycles” model is presented, which acknowledges the systemic and cyclical nature of dialogue and deliberation (as opposed to a linear progression of steps or stages).  And Philip Thomas integral theory of dialogue seeks to reconcile the seemingly incompatible views of dialogue he came across while working on the Handbook on Dialogue published by the United Nations Program on Development and its partners.  Thomas interviewed some practitioners who felt, for example, that personal transformation among dialogue participants was a critical outcome to emphasize in the Handbook, while others he interviewed wanted to de-emphasize and even eliminate such concepts from the book and focus primarily on political processes and outcomes.

Viv McWaters

To evaluate or not to evaluate?

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

This is a question that we don’t really ask ourselves, as we are often made to evaluate (to account for the money we received and spent), and to is also in our nature to demonstrate success (and hide failure..??).

A recent post by by Chris Brogan,   that we should pursue the goal, not the method (also picked up by David Gurteen, made me think about how this applies to evaluation. Often, we consume ourselves on developing and implementing a methodology to evaluate change, as opposed to actually focussing on achieving the change itself.

This made me recall a conversation with Greg Bruce, from Townsville City Council, where he and his team are achieving some transformative change, across the community, but also throughout the Council and partnering organisations.

Greg wondered whether it was of any use to focus so much effort on evaluation, especially considering the short time frames in which traditional project evaluation is undertaken (that is, during and immediately post-project). Why spend so much time, effort and money, when you could re-direct the focus towards on-ground action and transformation. For Greg, evaluation “needs long timeframes to evaluate impact to effort – in system dynamics in order to show effect”. Greg proposed that equally good indicators of success would include the buy-in of other organisations (whether through official or unofficial partnerships), receiving further grants, as well as recognition from local, national and international delegations (in in Greg’s humorous ways, “they will come and go as equally mystified as when they arrived“).

So, how much effort should we put into evaluating something that will likely occur over a long time frame, way beyond the scope of the project, or interest of funding agencies? Let us know what you think? Post a response, ask the question amongst your colleagues and network partners, and share your conversations at Show me the Change.

Posted by Damien Sweeney