How we change what others think, feel, believe and do
To Change Behaviors, First Change Beliefs: an essay for change agents
Guest articles > To Change Behaviors, First Change Beliefs: an essay for change agents
by: Sharon Drew Morgen
Why do people prefer behaviors that obviously lead to less-than-stellar results, especially when our sage advice, rational evidence, well-considered recommendations, and expert knowledge can offer them more successful choices?
Whether weâre parents of kids who sometimes need guidance, sellers with great pitches to offer folks who need our solution, coaches helping a client make changes, or doctors offering lifesaving wisdom, we too often sit by helplessly while folks who need our important data ignore us; our brilliant direction, ideas, and advice fall on deaf ears and we fail over and over again to get through to them.
Itâs actually our own fault. Weâre entering the wrong way, at the wrong time, with the wrong vehicles. Advice, thoughts, recommendations, persuasions â Iâll refer to external data as âInformationâ - is the very last thing needed. Our communication partners have no idea how to apply it, how to hear it, or what it means to them. To make matters worse our attempts to facilitate change from our own biases and professional beliefs potentially cause resistance and non-compliance where we seek to promote excellence. But letâs start at the beginning.
HOW DO BEHAVIORS CHANGE?
Permanent, congruent change is rarely initiated through the route of changing deficient behaviors. Behaviors are merely the expression of the underlying structure that created and normalized them over time; they can only change once the underlying structure that created and maintains them change in a way that maintains Systems Congruence. Itâs a systems problem, as youâll see. Indeed, actual behavior change is the final element in the change equation.
To help think about this, letâs parallel behaviors with the functionality â the âdoingâ - of a software app. The functionality of any app is a result of the internal coding; the programming uses lines of code to spell out the specific rules that define and enable specific functionality. To get a function to behave differently â to âdoâ something different - the underlying programming must change its coding. It cannot change otherwise. Even programs such as Alexa can only behave within the limits of their programming. (And yes, I wish Alexa could wash my windows.)
Itâs the same with human behaviors. Behaviors are the âfunctionâ, the output, the expression, of our mostly unconscious system of beliefs, history, internal rules, culture, goals, etc. â the lines of code â that define our Identity. All of our behaviors have been âcodedâ by the system to express who we are, just like the function of an app expresses the internal coding. So what we do, how we behave, the choices we make, are defined, regulated, and governed by our system to demonstrate that idiosyncratic set of elements â our personalities, our politics, our job choices, our ethical standards. It's our Identity. Weâre all âdoingâ who we âareâ, even when incongruent. Behaviors are how we show up in the world. And itâs impossible to change the functionality via the function.
WHAT IS A MALFUNCTION?
Any problems in our behaviors - our functionality â must be changed by the system that created/maintains them â the programming. When we believe there to be a malfunction in anotherâs functionality and a behavior change might be optimal, it canât be fixed by trying to change the place where itâs broken (Hello, Einstein.). Trying to change someoneâs behavior, regardless of the need or efficacy of the solution, is a waste of time and in some instances might cause trust issues.
For those of us who influence Others â sales folks, managers, doctors, coaches, consultants â weâve got to redefine our jobs. Our job as influencers isnât to push the change we think is needed, but to enable Others to find their own route to their own idiosyncratic, internal congruent change and change their own internal coding.
For that to happen, the internal coding - the entire set of rules that created the current programming malfunction and set of suboptimal behaviors - must shift to reorganize, reprogram itself around a new set of rules that will create a new set of behaviors to match. The problem is that much of this is unconscious and hidden (like in an app), certainly too unique for an Outsider to fully comprehend.
Therein lies the rub: while we may notice (and potentially bias the explanation of) anotherâs behavioral glitches, itâs not possible to see or understand the underlying coding that caused them or the systemic change issues that would have to be addressed for them to change their programming. I cannot say this enough: Itâs not possible to change anotherâs behavior from the outside; an internal coding change is required from within the personâs system to design different rules that would carry a different expression. We canât change behaviors: behaviors will change themselves once the program has changed.
How, then, can we, as outsiders, empower Others to make their own changes? Indeed, itâs a both a systems problem and a spiritual one. We can never change another person, but we can serve them in a way to enable them to create congruent change for themselves, using their own brand of Excellence.
OUR INFORMATION CANNOT CAUSE CHANGE
So now we know that Others cannot change their behaviors merely because we (or even they) merely think they should (i.e. the problem with diets, smoking cessation, etc). How, then, can we reconcile the approach weâve used to effect change? Until now, weâve used information as our major tool. We offer what seems the most relevant data (a biased process) using our own personal, intuitive approach to influence (a biased process) where we believe the Other needs to be (again, biased by our own beliefs) and wonder why we get pushback or noncompliance.
Somehow we believe that if we offer the right data, at the right time, in the right way, it will encourage action. Weâve developed entire professions based on outside âexpertsâ spouting âimportantâ ârelevantâ ârationalâ ânecessaryâ data, assuming these brilliant words and rational, sometimes scientific, arguments, carry âthe answersâ. But the information we offer pushes against the status quo, telling the status quo that it's 'wrong', and
The information we offer cannot even be understood, heard, or fully utilized used by those weâre intending it for, regardless of our intent or the efficacy of our solution, until the underlying rules, beliefs â status quo â are ready, willing, able to change congruently and be assured there will be no systems failure as a result of the change (Systems Congruence). This is why people donât take their meds, or buy a solution they might need, or sabotage an important implementation. Weâre asking them to do stuff that may (unconsciously) run counter to their systemic configuration, and not providing a route through to their systemic change, hoping that theyâll behave according to our vision of what their change should look like, rather than their own.
As outside influencers, we must facilitate Others to find their own Excellence by changing their own system; we must stop trying to change, influence, persuade, sway, manipulate, etc. Others using our own biased beliefs to inspire them. [Personal Note: My biggest gripe with sales, coaching, training, management, leadership, etc. is that there is a baseline belief that they have the ârightâ information that the Other needs in order to be Excellent. I reject that; we can only understand what Others are telling us through our own biases. Not to mention trying to âfixâ another is disrespectful and goes against every spiritual law.]. Indeed, as we see by our failures and the low adoption rate, itâs not even possible.
There are two reasons for this: because we filter everything we hear from Others as per our own programming and listening filters (biases, habits, assumptions, triggers, neural pathways, etc.), we canât be certain that what we think is needed is actually whatâs needed; Others canât understand what weâre trying to share due to their own filters and programming.
Indeed, when we share information before the system has already shifted its internal rules and programming to include a possibility of congruent, alternate choices, it will be resisted and rejected (and possibly shut down the system) as the system has no choice but to defend itself from possible disruption.
THE STEPS OF CHANGE
I have Aspergerâs, and part of my lifeâs journey has included making the personal changes necessary to fit in, to have relationships, to work in conventional business environments without being too inappropriate. To this end, and in the absence of the type of information available now (i.e. neuroscience, brain studies, etc.) Iâve spent decades coding how to change my own brain, and then scaling the process for others to learn. [Personal note: After working with one inside sales group in Bethlehem Steel for two years, I was introduced to the head of another group Iâd be working with. Behind me, I heard the new director say to my client: âIs she ALWAYS like this??â to which Dan replied, âYes. And youâll learn to love her.â So apparently, I am still a bit odd, although it seems normal to me.]
The steps of change Iâve coded are systemic (i.e. points of activity, not content-based) and are involved in any human change (see below). Each stage is unique, and designate the touchpoints into the unconscious that enables the brain to discern for itself where, if, or how to reexamine itself for congruency. I know there is no referent for it in conventional thinking. But Iâve trained this material, with simultaneous control groups, in global corporations, to 100,000 people and know itâs viable, scalable, highly successful, and useful in any industry or conversations that encourage change. This includes sales, coaching, management, marketing, health care, family relationships and communication, negotiation, leadership.
I start with understanding that I have no answers for Another, as Iâll never live the life theyâve lived; if itâs a group or company, Iâll never understand how the internal system has been historically designed to design the output that shows up. But I trust that when systems recognize an incongruence, they will change (A âruleâ of systems is that they prefer to be congruent.). My job as a change agent is to teach a system how to recognize an incongruence and use its own rules to fix itself. I use this thinking to facilitate buyers through their Pre-Sales change management issues, enable coaching clients to determine how to recognize their own systemic elements to change, help leaders obtain buy-in and Systems Congruence (and notice all potential fallout points) before a project.
There are 13 steps to systemic change, all of which must be traversed before a systems is willing/able to change. Here are the 3 main categories of the steps [Personal Note: I explain each step and the navigation of change in Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers canât buy and sellers canât sell]:
Once you understand the steps to congruent change, you realize the inefficiency of trying to create change through information sharing, or the impossibility of trying to shift behaviors from outside.
The model I developed is a Change Facilitation model (registered decades ago as Buying FacilitationÂŽ) that teaches Others to traverse the steps of change so each element is assembled and handled sequentially. While I often teach it (and write books about it) in the field of sales to enable sellers to facilitate buyers through their âPre-Salesâ steps to change management, the model is generic.
It includes a few unique skill sets that enable Others to recognize unconscious incongruence, and change themselves congruently using their own internal system. Theyâre different from whatâs conventionally used, and need training to learn as weâve not been taught to think this way. Indeed, there is no referent for these in conventional thinking, and like anything that threatens the status quo, often misunderstood or rejected. I can teach these skills through self-learning (Guided Study for complete knowledge, or Learning Accelerators for spot skills), group or personal training or coaching. I offer a caveat to those who try to add my ideas to their current thinking: when you add any of my ideas on top of what youâre already doing, youâll end up with more bias, continuing the failure youâre experiencing. Hereâs a description of the skills, with links to articles that offer a further explanation:
All of these require the influencer to have a goal of facilitating their own congruent, systemic change without the biases we usually impart (and get resistance).
I know that most change agents truly want to enable congruent, permanent change. But itâs a crap shoot if youâre using your âintuitionâ (biased judgment), line of questions (restricting the range of possible answers), biased listening, or âprofessionalâ knowledge (biased by the scope of the academic culture) to the change you believe is necessary. Itâs truly possible to help Others find their own route to Excellence. It just can't happen any other way.
Sharon Drew Morgen is the visionary behind Buying FacilitationÂŽ - a change management model that includes learning how to Listen for Systems, formulating Facilitative Questions, and understanding the steps of systemic change. For those of you wishing to learn more, take a look at the program syllabus. Please visit www.dirtylittlesecrets.com and read the two free chapters. Consider reading it with the companion ebook Buying FacilitationÂŽ
Sharon Drew is the author of the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling With Integrity, as well as 6 other books on helping buyers buy. She is also the author of the Amazon bestseller What? Did you really say what I think I heard? Sharon Drew keynotes, trains and coaches sales teams to help them unlock situations that are stalled, and teaches teams how to present and prospect by facilitating the complete buying decision process. She delivers keynotes at annual sales conferences globally. Sharon Drew can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org 512 771 1117
Contributor: Sharon Drew Morgen
Published here on: 30-Jul-17
And the big