Influence is all about change, consequently many approaches to influence are derived from change management research. Many change management models are stage models. I think these models are fairly flawed, and here’s why…

Stage Models of Change: These models are presented as well-defined, sequential phases people progress through as they change. Prochaska and DiClemente’s[1] “Six Stages of Change” model includes: Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, Maintenance, and Relapse; and Blanchard’s “Six Stages of Concern” model includes: Information Concerns, Personal Concerns, Implementation Concerns, Impact Concerns, Collaboration Concerns, and Refinement Concerns.

Unfortunately, stage models rarely stand up to any rigorous evaluation. It’s generally agreed a stage model must pass three tests: 1.The stages must be well defined and must describe a single unique state. For example, you can’t be part caterpillar and part butterfly. 2. The order of the stages must follow a sequence. You can’t become a butterfly without first being a caterpillar. 3. You can’t reverse the stages. Once you are a butterfly you can’t go back to being a caterpillar.

None of the stage models for change pass any of these three tests. In fact, researchers have pretty much given up on stage models because their track records are consistently poor. So why do so many find these models believable and insightful? Psychologists attribute this to the unwitting use of a dark art, or a fortunetellers’ skill called “cold reading.”

A “cold reader” meets a person “cold” with no prior knowledge about him, and reads his innermost secrets and predicts his life’s course. There are books that show “cold readers” how to craft their questions and word their “insights.” A quick example is the “rainbow statement”—a statement that predicts one concern, but also predicts its opposite: “You have a confidence and self assuredness that keeps you on an even keel, but there have been times when you’ve been wracked with serious doubt.”

Stage models make similar predictions about the concerns people have at different points in the change process—predictions that sound both unique and accurate. When scrutinized these predictions are not unlike the predictions of a palm reader or crystal ball gazer.

When I was a doctoral student in personality theory at Stanford we practiced cold reading as a way to impress undergraduates and convince them we could read their minds. Our most audacious attempt was sponsored by our professor David Rosenhan.

As teaching assistants for his abnormal psychology class, we asked 300 students to complete a lengthy personality inventory. A week later we gave them each 15-page “personality profiles” that shared what we’d learned about their inner feelings, their deepest concerns, and their internal conflicts. We covered very personal issues related to their parents, intimate relationships, and secret fears. Many students rated these profiles as the most meaningful feedback they’d ever received. More than a few cried as they read theirs, saying it hurt to see themselves so clearly. Then we asked them to pass their profile to another student picked at random. Quickly the students realized we’d given everyone the same profile. They’d all found meaning in the same stock descriptions.

Rosenhan and many of the prominent psychologists of the day—Paul Meehl, Albert Bandura, and Walter Mischel—made the critique that much of what psychologists thought they knew about personality prediction was in fact cold reading.

In the last 30 years, their critique has become widely accepted among research psychologists, though the practice among clinical psychologists and the business community has become more widespread.

Now for a brief note from the other side. David Funder, a close friend from Stanford, now leads the Riverside Accuracy Project at the University of California, Riverside. The Accuracy Project looks for ways to make personality judgments more accurate, and they’ve made some progress. They are currently working to understand three questions: Why are some people easier to read than others? Why are some traits easier to read than others? and Why are some people better at reading people than others. Their research may point the way to something better than cold reading in the future. Here is my prediction: “They will make dramatic progress but not before suffering setbacks that cause them—for at least a period—to doubt the entire basis of their work.”

Our book, Influencer, doesn’t use a stage-model approach to understanding influence. We concur with the majority of researchers that, while these models may seem insightful and appear to reflect individuals’ experience, they aren’t consistent enough or predictive enough to help people prepare for or influence change.

Add a comment

Posted by David Maxfield on November 14, 2007 4:20:00 PM MST #