Want behavior change? Tap the power of social norms

As a leader, have you ever felt frustrated about negative behaviors exhibited by people on your team? We’re not talking about firing offenses like rank insubordination or sabotage, but annoying patterns like failing to clean up the break room, using up expensive office supplies for personal reasons, or regularly keeping other people waiting by arriving late for meetings.

When you stop to think about these behaviors, it’s likely you see them as matters pertaining to individual people. Joe is a slob, Mindy is discourteous. And so to bring about change, you talk to the individuals involved and try to get them to mend their ways.

But what if there’s something deeper at work here, something that you’re not getting at when you merely consider individual behavior?

Rules of the group

What we’re talking about is the social norms that your team, like any group, has developed over time. Social norms are the rules – sometimes overt, sometimes unspoken — by which groups operate. Some norms are positive, promoting a healthy balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group. Others are dysfunctional: People focus only on their narrow interests and not on the good of the group.

In many cases, the negative behaviors that are so frustrating for managers are maintained by dysfunctional social norms. People are deeply reluctant to act inconsistently with what they consider “normal” behavior – even when “normal” is counterproductive.

So nobody cleans up the break room because nobody else cleans up the break room. Everybody “borrows” office supplies because everybody “borrows” office supplies. Everybody is late for meetings because everybody is late for meetings. At home or with friends, your people may be cooperative and kind. But at work they engage in the same non-cooperative behavior as everyone else.

The good news is that you can change these behaviors by changing the norms.

The research

To see how, let’s look at experimental research led by academics at the State University of New York-Albany. They explored what it would take to promote a specific behavior – in this case, getting flu shots. The answer, they found, came down to what the participants considered to be the social norm.

Using different sets of newspaper articles and other evidence, the researchers convinced half of the study participants that almost everybody gets flu shots. They persuaded the other half that almost nobody gets flu shots.

Next, they gave participants in both groups one of two articles. One described the benefits of getting a flu shot – that it “protects you and others against infection.” The other article suggested that a flu shot is a duty owed to others. It said that “failing to get a flu shot irresponsibly exposes others to infection.”

As a result, participants had four different perspectives:

1. Almost everybody gets a flu shot, and the shots are beneficial.
2. Almost everybody gets a flu shot, and not getting one is irresponsible.
3. Almost nobody gets a flu shot, but they’re beneficial.
4. Almost nobody gets a flu shot, but not getting one is irresponsible.

So which people said they’d be most likely to get a flu shot? By far, the members of the second group – those who had been primed to see getting a flu shot as both a social norm – “almost everyone gets one” – and as a duty – “it’s irresponsible not to get one.”

A 2-step process

The study suggests that gaining behavior change through the power of social norms is a two-step process.

Step One is establishing the norm. In some cases, you may need to use your authority as a manager to set team norms. But it’s more effective to get the team itself to do it. When the team “owns” the norm, it will be much more diligent about enforcing it.

Step Two is activating a sense of duty toward the group.  You want people to feel that when their behavior doesn’t meet the norm, they’re letting the group down.

A manager’s frustration

To see how to put this insight into practice, let’s imagine a manager we’ll call Matt.

On his way out of the office one day, Matt notices that the sink in the break room is full of dirty dishes. The counter is sticky. A balled-up paper towel sits on the floor next to the trash can, where someone aimed and missed. Matt reminds himself to have a talk with his team tomorrow about keeping the break room clean. No big deal.

But on his way home, Matt starts thinking it is a big deal. It’s not just the break room. He reflects on all the ways – small and large – that his people put their personal agendas ahead of what’s best for the team and the company. They routinely use office supplies for personal projects. They breezily keep other people waiting for meetings to start. And this lack of cooperation goes farther. When asked to pitch in on a rush project, they say they’re swamped. When they miss deadlines, they shrug and say, “I got busy.”

The next day, Matt reads his team the riot act. He gets sullen stares and grudging acquiescence. But nothing changes.

Gaining consensus

Let’s imagine now that instead of chewing people out and demanding change, Matt calls upon the conclusions of the research just discussed.

So he summons people to a meeting. “I want to talk about what kind of team all of you think we should have,” he says. “Do we want a team where people cooperate and have each others’ backs, or one where everyone is pretty much on their own?”

Of course, everyone agrees that they want to work on a team where people cooperate. Matt could have said so himself, but it was better to let his team say it.

Matt continues: “So let’s talk about what that means. What, specifically, do we expect from each other? Let’s make a list on the whiteboard.”

“I expect people to meet their deadlines,” Martha says.

“Why do you expect that?” Matt asks.

“If I get stuff late, I can’t meet my own deadlines,” Martha says.

“So you think we all need to be responsible because we all have an obligation to each other, right?” says Matt.

“Yeah, we can’t let each other down,” says Martha.

“Okay. What else?” asks Matt.

The team signs on

The team starts filling up the whiteboard with the behaviors and attitudes they expect from one another: “Clean up after yourself in the kitchen.” “Ask before using office supplies for personal projects.” “Be on time for meetings”

For each one, Matt asks, “Why is that important?  Why do you expect that?” He’s looking for affirmation from the group that violations of these behavioral norms is a signal that a person feels no sense of obligation or duty to the group.

Matt might not turn around his team overnight, but he’s likely to discover that his people will self-enforce the norms that they established themselves.

And if they don’t, Matt can revisit the conversation until the new norms stick. After all, that’s part of his responsibility to the group. And he can’t let them down.

---

This blog entry is adapted from the Rapid Learning module “For the good of the group: The secret power of social norms.” If you’re a Rapid Learning customer, you can watch the video here. If you’re not, but would like to see this video (or any of our other programs), request a demo and we’ll get you access.

The blog post and Rapid Learning video module are based on the following research article: Blanton, H., et al. (2001). “An Introduction to Deviance-Regulation Theory: The Effect of Behavioral Norms on Message Framing.” Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 848-858.