Humans, limitations and… options

This is an “impulse post”, if there is such a thing. I call it like this because it’s triggered by something I read at the playground, while watching my kids play (I know, some might say this is bad parenting, but reading a paper in the sun is quite soothing…).

Now, to the point I am really happy reading a really nice paper about change and seeing real world applications (and coincidentally “trust” appears 15 times in the paper…) around change and making it stick. The thing that triggered me to sit down and write is realizing how often I have acted with little trust when attempting to do change management work.

Relation of Trust and Human Behavior… YES, there is definitely one

The title seems boring, yet promising ..”Moving from Nudging to Boosting: Empowering Behavior Change to Address Global Challenges” . All it all the paper examines how approaches to behavioral change—specifically nudging and boosting—interact with trust and human behavior on both individual and collective levels. As it is the case, many times there is a plot twist, and nudging is the sub-optimal option, benefiting from a healthy infusion of trust based approach.

Nudging and the Role of Trust

The article puts out some pretty powerful statements about the drivers of change, long lasting change. It is interesting that these change aspects work also in times of pressure, where most change attempts crumble under the pressure of past habits.

• Nudging is often rooted in a “deficit model” of human behaviour, which assumes that individuals are cognitively and motivationally limited, and thus require external steering to make “better” decisions. So, the assumption is that people are not that good…
• This perspective tends to undermine trust, as policies based on the idea that people are inherently flawed send a message that authorities do not believe citizens are capable or willing to act in collective interest. Apparently this is something like a reversed Pygmalion effect, where low expectations lead to low results.
• Lack of trust in authorities or public health guidance can reduce compliance with policies like vaccination campaigns or health guidelines, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. To be fair, we see this in action in Romania quite often. Also, it seems to be the driving mechanism behind some of the latest campaigns to sway public opinion in the Russia vs World relationship.
• The article provides evidence that, in practice, trust was vital for public health response and vaccine uptake. Where trust in authorities or the health system was low (such as among Black Britons in the UK), vaccination rates lagged, highlighting the critical importance of trust for positive behavioural outcomes. So, there is “A new hope” inside the system.

Boosting and Trust-Building, some viable alternatives to nudging

• By contrast, the boosting approach is based on empowering people—helping them develop competences and agency, rather than steering them surreptitiously or assuming their inadequacy.
• Boosting involves engaging with communities, listening to concerns, and co-producing policies, all of which are key strategies for building trust.
• Fostering trust is shown to be effective in changing behaviour: for example, engaging directly with mistrustful communities during vaccine rollouts increased uptake, while top-down, disrespectful approaches increased resistance.
• The article argues that behaviour change is more likely to succeed when it recognizes and cultivates collective agency, trust, and shared identity, rather than relying solely on individual-focused, subtle interventions.

Summary view? There it is ..

What to walk away with?

• Approaches that build on trust, collective agency, and competence development are ethically and practically superior in addressing global challenges requiring sustained behaviour change. Yes, we know, it has been said a lot in the agile community, that one “should assume positive intent”, people are good …mostly.
• Policies that neglect trust or view people as fundamentally deficient risk backlash, lower compliance, and failure, especially in times of crisis. This has been tried before and it was confirmed, so the alternative seems better.

In summary, the article makes a compelling case that trust is both a prerequisite for and an outcome of approaches that empower rather than paternalistically steer human behaviour. Boosting, with its emphasis on agency, engagement, and competence, is positioned as the more trust-enhancing—and ultimately effective—strategy for societal challenges.

Maybe there is hope inside humanity!