Adfærdsdesign DUDUR metoden

Behavior Design

An introduction to behavior design and how it transforms e-learning effectiveness.

Behavior Design

This article is part of the series on behavioral design and the DUDUR method .
You can find explanations of the common concepts here: Concepts in the DUDUR method .

We believe that we can start with learning and end with action.
But learning is not a shortcut – it is a detour.

I have written an entire book about it in The DNA of Learning , where I show how complex learning actually is.

Communication is difficult. Learning is even more difficult.

And behavior – someone actually doing something different – is the hardest thing of all.

Learning is full of bottlenecks: attention, engagement, comprehension, memory, and motivation.

Even when we understand something, it doesn't mean we act on it.
Therefore, learning is the longest path to behavior – if the goal is for someone to do something differently.

The false premise – The knowledge-behavior illusion

There is a quote by Derek Sivers that says:

“If more information was the answer, then we'd all be billionaires with perfect abs.”
( https://sivers.org/kimo )

It hits the spot.

We imagine that the chain is simple: Information → Learning → Action.

But that chain has two weak links:

  1. We cannot be sure that people will learn what we tell them.
  2. Even if they learn it, we can't be sure they will.

I call that premise the Knowledge-Behavior Illusion – the belief that knowledge automatically leads to action.

This is a false premise that too many projects are based on.

It makes us start in the wrong places: We design more communication and more courses, even when the problem is not about knowledge, but about the conditions for action.

Why learning is actually the longest path to behavior

When we start learning, we simultaneously choose the most complex and uncertain path to action.
Learning requires attention, understanding, processing, memory – and a context in which the new knowledge is used.
Each of the phases can go wrong.

Learning is fantastic when the goal is learning. And when we learn because we want to and are curious.

But when the goal is behavior, learning becomes a detour.

Instead of trying to change people's minds, we can change the conditions under which they act.

We can remove the frictions – what makes it difficult, unsafe or pointless to act right.

As I usually say:

  • We try to change the thought, instead of changing the situation.
  • We try to increase motivation instead of removing friction.
  • We believe that understanding creates action – but it is action that creates understanding.

The will-to-like reflex – the right premise

I call the correct – and far more useful – premise the Will-like-to-be reflex:
People actually want to do the right thing.

When they don't, it's not about reluctance, but about friction – everything that stands in the way:
lack of meaning, insecurity, practical bumps or social risks.

As Kurt Lewin described back in the 1940s, behavior is not about turning up the drive, but about removing the barriers.

Or put in BJ Fogg's model: Behavior = Motivation × Ability × Trigger ( https://behaviormodel.org/ ).

When the meaning is clear and the path is simple, the action happens.

Lars and the learning theater

Let's see what it looks like in practice when the will-to-like reflex encounters learning theater.

My friend Lars works as an IT architect.

He has changed jobs several times in large companies and has therefore been onboarded again and again with the classic e-learning packages: Code of Conduct, IT security, anti-corruption, whistleblower, quality, working environment, etc.

In his current job, he was given 4.5 hours of e-learning plus documents to read and sign off on. In a previous company, it took him almost a week to get through all the material.

His experience was that much of the content had no value – and that he would rather take care of his work than waste time on trivialities.

The Code of Conduct stated that the company is against child labor and is in favor of the climate.

But Lars has no plans to support child labor. He already agrees. He just wants to do his job properly.

When he is asked to take a course that repeats what he already knows, he does not experience it as learning – but as a waste of time.

It's not reluctance. It's the will-will reflex in a pinch.

After the first day, he asked his colleagues how they managed to keep up with all the e-learning.

They laughed and said:

“We just click through it.”
So he did the same.

In courses with locked navigation, Lars often lets the module run on an extra screen while he works.

He can always pass the tests because the answers are obvious.

And in recent jobs, he has ignored reminder emails, but then a boss shows up and asks him to complete the course – because it's a KPI they are measured on.

Execution, not behavior. It will be pure theater.

SAFL – Situation, Behavior, Friction, Solution

When working with behavioral design, we use the SAFL framework:

  • Situation: Where and when will the behavior occur?
  • Behavior: What do we want to happen?
  • Friction: What stands in the way – practical, psychological or social?
  • Solution: What design features can eliminate friction?

The question that should always be asked is:

Does this make it easier to do the right thing – or harder to do the wrong thing?

If the answer is not clear, it should be cut away.

SAFL helps us find out if we have a learning problem – or a behavioral problem.

Often it turns out to be the latter.

Case: Cool safety glasses

In a large industrial company, it was difficult to get employees to consistently wear safety glasses.
The classic approach would be to create an e-learning course or campaign that explained why the glasses were important.

Instead, the company asked employees why they didn't always wear the glasses.
The answer was clear: The glasses that were available for free use were often scratched, did not fit well, or were not readily available when they were needed.

The solution was to give employees their own safety glasses – individually adjusted so that they fit properly.
They could choose features like a sunglasses effect, and the supplier came out and did a fitting.

Suddenly, employees started taking care of their glasses so they didn't get scratched – and they always had them on hand.

The problem was not that the employees did not know the rules.
The problem was that the equipment was poor and uncomfortable to use.
The solution was not more information, but removing the friction.

When learning does more harm than good

We often think that poor learning is at most a waste of time.
But sometimes it does more harm than good.

A good example is GDPR training.

Many employees believe that sensitive personal data only covers the most private information – health, religion, sexuality.

The error comes from a mix-up of two words: sensitive personal data (the legal term in the GDPR) and personal data (which in reality covers all information that can be attributed to a person).

When the training does not challenge this preconceived notion, but instead shows nice slides with definitions, three things happen:

  1. Participants feel that they have learned something because the material is easy to understand.
  2. But the misconception remains intact: that common data like name and email do not require protection.
  3. The result is that people send Excel sheets with names and addresses unencrypted – because they think they are acting correctly.

If the training had instead challenged the misconception – for example, with cases where “ordinary” data creates a breach – the participants would have been confronted with the fact that their intuitive answers were wrong.
Only then does the autopilot stop, and only then is there a chance for real learning and new behavior.

This is related to what research calls the Illusion of Explanatory Depth – we think we have understood a topic when it is explained easily, but our misconceptions remain if they are not challenged.

Physicist and communicator Derek Muller shows it in his TED talk:
"The key to effective educational videos" . ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQaW2bFieo8 )

When a video addresses the recipients' misconceptions and says them out loud – so they are confronted with the fact that what they believe is wrong – they actually learn something.

When the video, on the other hand, simply explains the material nicely and smoothly, people feel like they understand it all – but their misconceptions are left untouched.

Case: Esbjerg Municipality – from course to behavior

Esbjerg Municipality contacted me because they wanted to reduce sick leave.
The policy was actually clear: Managers were to contact nursing staff on the first, fifth and twelfth day of illness and call for an interview in the event of repeated absences.

HR's first thought was classic: “We have to do a course.”
They actually first asked me to translate an existing hour and a half e-learning course.

Before moving forward, we tested the solution as a hypothesis:
Would managers experience a one-and-a-half-hour course on sick leave as helpful – and make them change their behavior?
I was skeptical.

Fortunately, HR was open to my recommendation:
Instead of doing more teaching, we should investigate what was actually standing in the way.

We held a workshop with a number of leaders.
The barrier turned out to be psychological and social.
Many managers felt it felt like a lack of trust to call in a sick employee on day 1 – and employees often experienced it the same way.

The solution was a package of small measures that together reduced friction:

  • Three short three-minute videos for both managers and employees explained why early contact works.
  • A simplified sick leave policy, boiled down to one page in clear language.
  • Double-sided notifications from the HR system, so both the manager and employee received a reminder when contact was due.

The result was a decrease in short-term absence of 0.5 sick calendar days per employee.
In an organization with over 10,000 employees, this equates to approximately 26,600 hours – or 3,600 working days – saved annually.
The effect has remained stable for many months.

Read the case here:
https://elearningspecialist.com/om-os/cases/esbjerg-kommune-fra-langt-kursus-til-effektiv-adfaerd/

Learning is a means – not an end

The problem is not that learning is unimportant.
The problem is that we start in the wrong place.

Learning is a means – never an end.

The goal is always behavior.

If we can get the behavior in a way other than through learning, we should do it –
for learning is the longest path to behavior.

That doesn't mean we should never make courses or videos.
But we have to start somewhere else:
with the behavior we want to bring forth, the frictions that stand in the way,
and only then – if necessary – with the smallest amount of information that actually shifts behavior.

That's why we work with the DUDUR method – a method that starts with behavior, not with learning goals.

It finds the frictions and designs solutions that eliminate them.

Sometimes the solution is a video.
Sometimes a checklist.
Sometimes better glasses.

But it always starts with listening to those who need to act –
not to pour more information on them.

Read more

Did you like what you read?

If you think this made sense, you'll probably also want to follow my next project:
I am currently writing volume 2 in the series Superlearning? – the book From Learning Theater to Behavior.

It is about how we can use the DUDUR method to design learning and communication that actually changes behavior.
The book builds on The DNA of Learning – where I show how learning happens in the brain and how we can remove the bottlenecks that stand in the way of understanding, engagement and memory.

👉 If you want to be notified when From Learning Theatre to Behavior is published – and follow the work along the way, you can sign up here:
Keep me updated

You can also read more about the series at superlaering.dk

Flere artikler