I’ve been thinking about how people think, how they change, how they think about change, and how they think to change… which is why I’ve been thinking we need a new way to think about not only how people think but also how they think about changing.
In other words, I believe we need a new metaphor for understanding all the various aspects in play.
One of my favorite metaphors to date is the metaphor of the elephant, the rider, and the path, originated by NYU psychologist Jonathan Haidt and popularized by Chip and Dan Heath in their book on change, Switch. This metaphor represents:
- the rational mind (the rider),
- the “emotional” mind (the elephant), and
- the environment (the path)
that come together in any moment where we are making a decision about change.
To be clear, there are strengths to this current metaphor that we’d want to maintain in any update to it. For instance, the elephant and rider clearly represent the relative strength and importance of the two minds in play. The elephant and its animal nature are a useful way to represent how the non-rational brain relies on instincts, intuition, feeling, emotion, heuristics, and training. The elephant also represents strength and potential immobility, depending on the situation or the strength of the ride.
But one of the drawbacks of the elephant as the representative of the primal brain (a term I prefer over “emotional” brain, as it relies on more than just emotions!) is that you can’t change the elephant. The elephant is the elephant. It implies that you’re stuck with a set of unchangeable instincts and intuitions.
And yet, that isn’t true when it comes to how someone thinks about a situation or change. Based on what I’ve seen in my work and discovered through research, you can change which instincts, assumptions, and beliefs drive a decision so that even a new behavior or a new way of thinking feels right and true to the non-rational brain.
Here’s a metaphor that may work even better: a musher and their pack of sled dogs. First, this replaces the rider with a driver. The “riding” component is still there because the rational brain is generally pulled along by the primal brain. But turning the rider into a driver also suggests that the driver can do more than just steer or be pulled along by the dogs. The musher can also train, direct, and reorder them based on the situation and the environment, just as we can direct and redirect our primal brains through conscious, rational effort (training!).
First, though, it helps to understand that, in a sled dog team, each row of dogs plays a specific role. In the front are the lead dogs, the most responsive and intelligent dogs that have been trained to respond to the musher’s commands. Behind them are the swing dogs, which help turn the team and keep the process of turning (change!) smooth. They are also often lead dogs taking a break or lead dogs in training. Together the lead dogs and swing dogs control where the sled goes in response to the driver’s instructions. But they don’t pull the sled alone. For that, the driver needs the team dogs, which lighten the load by following along. Finally, at the back are the wheel dogs, the largest and strongest, providing power, especially on rough terrain.
Having these different positions and roles is useful for the driver. Based on the track, terrain, and destination, different dogs will do a better or worse job. If the path is well-traveled, it makes sense to try out new dogs. In new territory, it makes sense to have the best dogs leading and directing.
In this updated metaphor of the mind, this changeability based on desired outcome is important, especially when we think of sled dogs as the driving beliefs, intuitions, assumptions, heuristics, and shortcuts that our non-rational brain relies on. But, just like the sled dog team, whatever is leading can be rearranged in the moment to serve a different purpose.
This changeable mental model is key when thinking about how we think about change, because if you’re trying to build buy-in for a new change, you’re trying to convince the driver in your audience’s brain to rearrange their sled dogs.
What can you do to help make that process easier? First, account for the fact that two different systems are processing information simultaneously. The good news? Both brains—both the musher and the dogs—feed on logic. Both the rational brain and the intuitive, primal brain love cause-and-effect relationships, so make sure you’re articulating that relationship for your audience.
The simplest way? Think: “If, Then, Because,” where what follows:
- IF is an outcome your audience actively and knowingly wants
- THEN is the change you want your audience to make
- BECAUSE are the intutively agreeable reasons the change can deliever the outcome.
To use an example from my client, Vince Molinaro and Leadership Contract Inc.:
- IF you want to successfully execute a strategic shift
- THEN scale accountability
- BECAUSE:
- Accountability is the ownership of outcomes, and
- Success requires execution at scale
That example actually includes the second reminder built into this metaphor: Feed the dogs first. Instead of feeding the rational brain reasons that are backed in data, scientific studies, and all the facts, feed the primal brain all the beliefs, assumptions, heuristics, and intuitively agreeable ideas it loves first, and then back up those beliefs with evidence and data.
In other words, build a logical case based on what both the rational and primal brain believe to be true.
Doing that gives you a powered-up, fired-up team of sled dogs that are ready to go, to move, to act. Then, the driver can take over, and after listening to the rational data and evidence that supports the case, both the driver and the dogs (the primal and rational brains) can work together toward the new destination of change.