Embedding Behavioral Science in Organizations

How Can We Support Internal Teams & Realize a New Vision?

What is the most effective approach to embedding Behavioral Science within organizations?

It’s a question that resonates for me, as it relates directly to my own experience over the past decade, helping private sector companies on this journey. It’s also a challenge addressed by my BIT colleague Michael Hallsworth in his recently released Manifesto for Applying Behavioral Science, which includes ten prescriptions for shaping the future of the field and increasing its positive impact.

On one level, Michael speaks to the strengths and limitations of alternative approaches to building Behavioral Science knowledge and capacity. He raises the question of whether an organization is best served by building a centralized Behavioral Science team (an internal “nudge unit”) — or by pursuing a more diffuse model, in which practitioners are spread across different business units or functions.

Here, my experience suggests that the answer may correspond to different stages along the path to becoming behaviorally-informed. At the start, there’s typically a need for centralized expertise, to set direction, advise leaders and champion Behavioral Science across the organization. However, as the journey continues, there are limitations to this approach, tied to budget and capacity. A modest, centralized team can only accomplish so much — and the larger the team grows, the greater the pressure to justify its impact and ROI (via specific projects). This dynamic can inevitably detract energy away from larger goals, such as inspiring, educating and embedding knowledge across the organization. Thus, it’s still quite rare to find internal Behavioral Science teams with more than a few individuals — and it’s not uncommon to encounter a single individual designated as the “Behavioral Science person” within a large global company. This reality links to several interesting questions:

Given that most dedicated Behavioral Science functions are quite small, where should they focus their efforts?

In my experience, the answer is (predictably) heavily-influenced by where the unit lives within the corporate structure. To share three quick examples:

• The Behavioral Science lead at a financial services institution has focused on accompanying advisors in their client meetings;
• The Behavioral Science lead at a health care organization has focused on developing Behavioral Science workshops for the organization’s clients;
• The Behavioral Science lead at a large insurer has focused on projects tied to claims submissions;

Clearly (and understandably), the commonality is a tendency to gravitate towards customer-oriented efforts that are more likely to generate quantifiable revenue or cost-savings for the organization.

A related question is how and when internal Nudge Units should employ outside resources (such as consultancies or academics) to extend their impact.

Here, I’ve seen two potential paths emerge:

• In some cases, internal units have looked for outside support in developing their “infrastructure” (such as training materials, literature reviews, ethics guidelines, etc.), in order to focus their energy on specific projects.
• Other organizations, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, have largely reversed this approach, by looking to an outside partner as a consistent advisor across dozens of projects.

In either scenario, having a coherent strategy for tapping into external resources appears to be a part of the formula for amplifying impact, given the risks and limitations of growing a large internal unit.

The Manifesto also adds a dimension to the discussion, by proposing a new way to think about spreading behavioral science in organizations. Michael applies the analogy of a house and encourages us to think about “upgrading the wiring” (by baking Behavioral Science into core structures and procedures), rather than “building a room” (via an internal, dedicated unit).

This is very compelling, as areas such as budgeting, performance appraisal and incentive structures all offer enormous opportunities for positive impact. In addition, as Michael points out, a process-driven approach may offer a higher level of resilience, considering the inevitable changes in managerial teams and budget levels over time.

However, I find myself wondering how we can realize this vision in a practical sense. Who will be willing to fund dedicated efforts to “re-think” (or perhaps “rewire”) an organization’s core processes, such as how budgets are determined and how decisions are made?

To me, the most intuitive answer is Human Resources, as this function “owns” many of these areas, most notably training, performance appraisal and compensation. Further, there’s no question that behaviorally-informed approaches can deliver significant benefits tied to employee well-being, retention and productivity. However, my own experience suggests that HR budgets are limited, in the absence of large-scale organizational change initiatives, driven and funded from the C-Suite.

Compliance emerges as another possibility, as organizations routinely spend millions to meet regulatory requirements and reduce enterprise risk, with mixed results. Applying a “Behavioral Science lens” to compliance training and processes holds the potential to bring an enormous return.

A third option is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), as Behavioral Science can arguably be framed as a vehicle to promote a range of positive initiatives, ranging from Sustainability to Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI). Yet these areas intuitively feel best suited to specific projects, rather than a true “rewiring” of the organization.

To conclude, I’d like to put forth several questions to my colleagues in the applied Behavioral Science community:

• First, are we aligned on the vision that Michael has outlined, regarding the effort to embed Behavioral Science in the “wiring” of organizations?
• If so, where do you see the most promising greatest opportunities? Or perhaps existing success stories to share ?
• What can we do collectively, as a community, to foster this effort and help more organizations to embed Behavioral Science?

I welcome your thoughts and builds, on the Manifesto, this blog and the questions I’ve posed. Please reach out to me directly at scott.young@bi.team. I look forward to hearing from you and continuing the conversation.