La Actitud

"Assistance at A Distance"

Changing Someone Else’s Behavior
Distance Consulting
by Fred Nickols

Factors to Consider

In many cases, Distance Consulting provides an effective, low-cost alternative to high-priced on-site consulting. If you want to know more about how it works, give me a call at (740) 397-2363 or send me an e-mail at the address below.

nickols@att.net

© Fred Nickols2000

Changing Someone Else’s Behavior

This is the second of two articles I published under the pen name, Peter W. Taylor. This one appeared in the October 1993 issue of Performance and Instruction. Joe Harless, a well-known figure in training and human performance circles, was so taken with the integration of force field analysis and reinforcement theory presented in this article that hedashed off a note to the mythical Peter W. Taylor. (Darn! I should have published it under my own name).

The Problem State

The Solved State

Introduction
A close friend and colleague of mine, a manager at the same firm where I am employed, sought my assistance recently in analyzing the problems presented by the behavior of one of the supervisors reporting to her. As it turns out, my friend(let's call her Ruth from here on) was up against two very different kinds of behavior problems. One involved getting the supervisor to stop doing some things. The other required getting the supervisor to start doing some other things. During our discussion, we had occasion to touch on ideas and concepts drawn from Allen Newell and Herbert Simon's theory of human problem solving, Kurt Lewin'sforce field theory (as described by Gordon Lippitt), and B. F. Skinner's reinforcement theory. What emerged from our discussion is a useful synthesis, a partial integration of the ideas and concepts just mentioned – a framework for examining problems where the general form of the solution involves changing someone else's behavior. This article presents that framework.

a

The Solution Path

a'Figure 1 - The General Structure of A Problem Situation

As Newell and Simon (1972) point out, "A person is confronted with a problem when he wants something and does not know immediately what series of actions he can perform to get it (p.72)." Hence the requirement to search for a solution, a way of getting from a to a'. In somewhat different terms, the problem state or A may be viewed aswhat is, the solved state or A' may be viewed as what should be, and the course of figuring out how to close the gap between the two constitutes the solution path. The practical implications of the general problem structure for Ruth were the requirements to specify very clearly the behaviors she wanted the supervisor to stop (What Is), those she wanted the supervisor to start (What Should Be), and tosearch for a solution in what is known about changing behavior.

The General Structure of A Problem Situation
All problem situations, regardless of the specific kind of problem, have the same general structure (see Figure 1). The three elements of this structure are: 1. 2. 3. the problem state the solved state, and the solution path.

The Problem of Change
All problem situations share morethan the general structure presented in the preceding section; they also can be attacked from two very different angles. One angle of attack is from the perspective of content, that is, the specific kind of problem, be it a "behavior" problem, a "business" problem, a "performance" problem, or a "production" problem. The other angle of attack is from the perspective of process. Here, the problem –regardless of type – is cast as a problem of change, that is, the tasks are to unfreeze the

© Fred Nickols 2000

2

Changing Someone Else’s Behavior

current or problem situation, intervene, and then refreeze the resultant future state (which, it is hoped, is the one defined as the solved state). This separation of process and content is not new to professional problem solvers. It is...