The AFBSHIFT Method

Specify the Behavior

Why this matters: adopting the new system or way of working isn’t a behaviour, it’s an outcome. Diagnosis only becomes possible when you specify the concrete actions people must take in real work.

We look at the behaviors in context. Instead of being vague — "employees need to adopt the new CRM" or "need to speak up in meetings" — we get specific: "sales reps enter contact notes within 24 hours of each customer meeting, including next steps and follow-up date."

In practice: a financial services client said people aren’t using the platform. We translated that into 5 behaviours, focusing only on those that had the most constraints.

• Actors: who needs to do it
• Behaviours: the observable action
• Context: when/where it happens

Hypothesize (Diagnose the barriers)

We use behavioral models to find what’s blocking the behaviours.

Why this matters: when things get stuck, leadership often assumes the issue is motivation ("resistance") and respond with more messaging. SHIFT checks whether the real problem is about knowledge or the system, because comms won’t fix a system that gives incentives for the old behaviors.

In practice: a change initiative rollout was stuck at 45% adoption. We found users knew what was going on and had the tools to do it, but lacked the confidence, the internal why (purpose), as well as the support to move forward. The fix wasn’t more training. It was clarifying the purpose and helping them to internalize the change, giving people choices and creating a sense of belonging.

How we test hypotheses: observation, barrier-focused interviews, workflow mapping, friction audits, and comparing where/when the behaviour does happen versus doesn’t.

• Can they do it? (knowledge, skill, clarity, cognitive load)
• Does the environment make it possible? (workflow fit, tools, time, access, social norms)
• Does it feel worth it? (meaning, risk, incentives, habit, identity)

Intervene

We match the fix to the diagnosed barriers.

Why this matters: the most common mistake in change is creating good strategies for the wrong barriers, which end up not working and creating cynicism.

Our approach: we draw on evidence-based behaviour change and implementation strategies to map the right barriers to the right interventions, and we contextualize these to the projects, so they are not just generic, but purpose made.

Facilitate Stakeholders

Even the best intervention fails if it can’t get approved, resourced, prioritised, or reinforced. Executives, middle managers, IT, compliance, HR, Product — everyone involved has their own constraints.

SHIFT applies the same lens to stakeholder behavior.

In practice: a healthcare client kept projects in "review" for too long; our diagnosis showed middle managers were blocking because the change would make performance more visible to executives. The barrier wasn’t disagreement, it was fear of exposure. We redesigned reporting to show team trends rather than individual metrics.

Common stakeholder barriers: risk aversion, competing priorities, unclear decision rights, fear of blame, lack of peer support, low confidence in the implementation plan.

• Who must approve, prioritise, resource, or reinforce this?
• What’s blocking them? (risk, incentives, workload, exposure, misalignment)
• What would make support easier and safer?

Test and Iterate

Pilot, measure behaviour change, adjust, then scale what works.

Context matters, there is not one size fits all. A strategy that works in one team may fail in another. That’s why SHIFT pilots before scaling, and measures behavior, not sentiment.

What we measure: not "Are you satisfied with the training?", not "Do you understand why this matters?" — instead, the behavioural signals below.

SHIFT in delivery: small pilot → observe behavior → adjust → prove → scale.

• Did the behavior happen
• Did it happen well
• Did it sustain after the push
• Did workarounds reduce
• Was the intervention implemented as designed