Expertise · Behaviour change
Agreement is not behaviour
Agreement is not behaviour change. Between understanding that something should change and actually changing it lie several questions: what do I notice, what do I recognise in myself, why would I change, am I able to, and how will I make it happen? Then comes perhaps the hardest question: how do I sustain it? Personal discipline alone is rarely enough. The environment must also allow the new behaviour.
Working conditions matter
Different behaviour often requires time, resources, opportunities and rules that make it possible.
From insight to sustained action
Becoming aware is a beginning. Following through is another matter.
Our work considers seven connected questions. They help us understand where change becomes difficult and what kind of support may help. They are not mandatory stages that everyone must pass through in a fixed order.
Awareness
What is happening now, what should be different and how would we recognise the difference? Change begins by examining reality, not by applying a label.
Self-awareness
What habits, beliefs, emotions and automatic responses shape my own behaviour? Reflection should not turn structural problems into supposed personal failures.
Ownership
What can a person genuinely influence and take responsibility for? What must the team or organisation change? Ownership requires real agency, not token participation.
Motivation
Why would changing be worthwhile? What needs, concerns, interests and expectations matter? A genuine objection deserves investigation too.
Knowing how and being able to act
What knowledge, skills, tools, time and opportunity are needed? Sometimes practice helps. Sometimes the work itself must be redesigned before the requested behaviour is possible.
An actionable plan
Who will do what differently, when and in which circumstances? What obstacles do we expect, what support is available and how will we know whether it works? An intention becomes a practicable commitment.
Discipline and sustaining change
How does repeated action become a sustainable habit? Through practice, feedback, reminders, support and adjustment.
Not seven magic stages.
These questions overlap, recur and may arise in a different order. Sometimes the proposed change is itself unwise or unsafe. When behaviour repeatedly stalls, we also examine organisational conditions: time pressure, rules, resources, power and expectations. The illustration below addresses those conditions.
A cognitive behavioural foundation
Notice, practise, revise
This approach draws on principles from cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). We explore the relationship between what people think, feel and do; which habitual beliefs or responses may be involved; and how those assumptions can be examined in everyday action. The point is not to tell people to 'think differently', but to explore observable alternatives, try them out and learn from what happens.
Self-observation, the critical examination of beliefs, behavioural experiments, action planning, practice, feedback and dealing with setbacks are recognisable cognitive behavioural methods. They can also inform organisational and behavioural work when used voluntarily, ethically and with attention to context. The work environment remains part of the explanation: time pressure, rules, resources, expectations and genuine decision-making power all affect what a person can change.
Our seven questions are a practical way to organise change work, not a clinical treatment protocol or a scientifically validated universal sequence. Proofconsult provides organisational and behavioural expertise, not psychotherapy. Nor is a requested change automatically desirable merely because a sponsor wants it.
Illustration · where agreement leaks
From a stated intention to something that actually happens
Everyone agreed to scan the pallet. Six in ten do.
At a fictional regional distribution centre the shift teams agreed, in a well-run meeting, that every inbound pallet is scanned at the dock before it moves. Mispicks downstream were costing money and the reason was plain to everyone. Three weeks later roughly six in ten pallets are scanned. The rest are moved first and scanned “when there is a moment”, which often means never. (The figures are invented to show the reasoning.)
The tempting explanations are about people: they do not care, they need a reminder, they need training. Each one is a hypothesis about a mechanism, and none has been tested. Meanwhile the manager faces a choice that is easy to get wrong: a poster, a talking-to, or a few weeks of looking before acting.
Why scans are missed at the loading bay
They can coexist, and the cues are never perfectly clean. Each one calls for a different move.
1 · Intention
Mechanism: some people doubt the scan is worth the time, or believe their colleagues do not bother either.Cue: ask each person separately “why do we scan?” and “who on this shift does?”. The answers show either doubt about the reason or a belief that nobody really does it.Move: put the actual downstream cost in front of the team and let them test it themselves. Do not repeat the reason louder.2 · Capability and opportunity
Mechanism: the step is possible but awkward: the scanner sits at the far end, batteries are flat, the label faces the wrong way.Cue: compliance varies by dock door and by hour more than by person, and people who skip say “it takes ages”.Move: put one scanner at the busiest door and compare that door with the others over ten working days.3 · Habit and a missing cue
Mechanism: the old routine (lift, move, sort out the paperwork later) runs on autopilot, and nothing in the situation triggers the new step at the right moment.Cue: people who skip are surprised when shown that they skipped, and omissions cluster when they are interrupted or hurried.Move: put the trigger where the action starts, for instance a floor marking where an unscanned pallet physically has to stop.4 · Consequences and norms
Mechanism: scanning costs seconds, throughput is what gets noticed, and the fastest colleagues set the pace.Cue: compliance is lowest on the shift whose supervisor quotes only pallets per hour.Move: review scan rate next to throughput at handover, and see whether the fastest team shifts first.These are plausible applications of well-established ideas: that behaviour depends on beliefs and social norms, on capability and opportunity, on cues and habit, and on what follows the act. Which of them operates at this dock is an empirical question about this dock.
The work
What we would like to see change
- Name the behaviourWho does what, where, when, in what order. “Take ownership” is not a behaviour; “scan before the pallet leaves the line” is. You get: a one-sentence definition that two observers would score the same way.
- Observe it in its settingA short round of watching, existing data traces such as scan logs, and individual conversations. We look at variation by place, time, shift and person. You get: a baseline and a map of where and when it fails.
- Rank the mechanismsWe write down what each mechanism predicts and look for the observation that would rule one out. You get: a short ranked list with the evidence for each position.
- Design one or two small, reversible changesA change to the setting is usually cheaper and fairer than a change to the person. Each change carries a written prediction. You get: a test plan and the prediction.
- Check the outcomeCompare with the baseline after a full working cycle, and look for side effects and for people who now skip something else. You get: a short outcome note: held, partly held, or did not hold.
What would count as it working
Written before the change starts
- PredictionScan rate at the changed door rises clearly above the other doors within ten working days.
- ThresholdAgreed with the sponsor in advance: how large a rise counts, over how many days. A small uplift is then not declared a success afterwards.
- Side effectsThroughput, errors elsewhere, and what people now say they skip instead.
- If it failsDrop that mechanism, try the next on the list, and say so in writing.
We set the numbers with you, case by case. We do not quote typical effect sizes, because the figures in the literature depend heavily on the setting, the measure and on who measured.
How certain are we?
What research tells us about behaviour change
- EstablishedBehaviour is shaped by beliefs and norms, by capability and opportunity, by cues and habit, and by consequences.
Broadly supported across many studies and settings. What works in one setting does not carry over automatically.
- Plausible applicationFor routine, high-volume actions a change to the physical setting usually beats a message to individuals.
Supported in several fields, not tested at your site. That is why we test it there.
- Our hypothesisMost failed behaviour changes in operations have more than one mechanism at work, and a sequence of small tests finds them faster than one large programme.
We keep a record of where this turns out to be wrong.
The limits of behavioural advice
- We do not promise lasting change. Many effects fade when the setting reverts.
- We do not use hidden persuasion. Changes aimed at employees are explained to them, and monitoring individual behaviour is a decision that goes through the ethical review first.
- We do not treat stage-of-change models or personality types as predictions of who will comply. Such models describe, and the evidence that they predict is thin.
- We do not sell a standard training programme in place of the diagnosis.