I heard the story about the local town legislators who faced a problem. The local college students were buying kegs of beer for parties. Large parties. Out of control, loud parties. The solution seemed straightforward and within their control – limit the sale of kegs to college students. Problem solved. Or at least they thought.
And so, per the plan, sale of kegs to college students dropped dramatically. But within a few months, parties resumed that were just as loud and bothersome. And something even more alarming began to happen. The local ER began to see more and more instances of alcohol poisoning.
What these legislators failed to realize is that it’s not uncommon that attempts to fix problems often result in even bigger, unintended ones. And that there are few easy fixes in complex social situations.
In hindsight, what had happened is really quite predictable. Unable to obtain beer in enough quantities to host large parties, the college students found another substitute – making large volumes of punch with hard liquor. And a garbage can full of whiskey punch is far more intoxicating, far easier to consume in large amounts, and far more likely to result in adverse health consequences, than kegs of beer.
And of course, in hindsight, we ask how could they not have seen this coming? Didn’t they know that college students are smart and would find a way to keep the party going? Yet the trap of failing to anticipate unintended consequences trips up all of us – especially as we make changes in the organizations we lead. For example:
- We see the marketing folks who devise a clever sales strategy that teaches consumers ONLY to buy the product when it is on sale and never at full price.
- Elaborate systems are designed to drive productivity and we are amazed when quality slips.
- We link rewards to measures we put in place with great care and are dismayed when people “game” the system.
- Attempts to improve profitability by lowering operational costs drive customers away, impacting both the top and bottom line.
- We entice new customers by offering better pricing structures to them, and lose the loyalty of longstanding regular customers who are offended and don’t feel valued.
I suspect you have your own examples. As we lead change within organizations or complex social systems (and anytime there are more than 3 people involved – they begin to become complex), we need to pause and ask the question:
“How might people respond to this change in ways I am not thinking about?”
And there are solid ways to foresee and then mitigate unintentional consequences. Ones we employ regularly include:
- Engaging the target audience early in the planning and design, and listening hard to their thoughts and reactions
- Starting with pilots and tests to work out kinks and to scan for consequences
- Using phased implementations that allow you the opportunity to start small, unearth the unexpected consequences, adjust and then move forward
- Completing an exercise where you identify all those impacted by the change and then list all possible reactions – both positive and negative
It is very helpful to define the behavior you want to change, and then test your solution to ensure that it really does solve the problem in the way you intend. In our college example, knowing if they were curbing noise, drunk driving, or underage drinking (or all three) may have led them to design a more elegant solution.
Once you know the behavior you want to change, you can then clearly define the alternative behavior you intend to substitute. In our beer example, it is fairly safe to assume that college students are going to have parties and consume alcohol. Knowing the behavior you want to curb and then finding a behavior that is a good substitute is a great change strategy; people will substitute an alternative behavior. Only exhorting them NOT to do something without an alternative behavior is an effort destined to fail.
Here is a great real life example, following on our drinking theme.
A highly effective change effort was the one aimed at reducing drunk driving by having a designated driver (DD). The target behavior was to NOT get behind the wheel after drinking, and the substitute behavior was to identify a designated driver ahead of time (as we know that poor decisions are made when folks are impaired). The media campaign made being a DD a noble calling – and it became socially acceptable to take your turn as the sober one in order that you got everyone home safely. The “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” campaign reinforced the social aspect – and shifted the decision to looking out for your buds to one that was socially acceptable and done in advance.
Our drinking example is only one that illustrates the concept of unintended consequences and substitute behaviors. What examples can you share?
