Organisational behavioural objective: meaning and application

An organisation wants people to "become more aware" of something, or wants "more support" for a decision. That sounds like a goal, but it does not say what anyone will do differently tomorrow. Who exactly? What will they do, and where and when? Until they are answered, you cannot choose a suitable approach or check whether it works. A behavioural objective forces you to answer them. This article covers its origins, how it differs from communication and attitude objectives, how to formulate, prioritise and measure it, and its limits.

An organisational behavioural objective is the concrete, observable behaviour an organisation wants to achieve in a specific target group, worded so that it is clear who does what, when, where and how often.

The concept ties in with target behaviour specification in the behaviour change literature. A behavioural objective differs from a communication objective (what people see, know or remember) and from an attitude objective (what people think or intend). It is the organisation's objective: it does not say what the target group itself wants or needs.

"Organisational behavioural objective" is not an established scientific term with a single originator, but a Neurofactor working concept. It builds on an idea from several lines of research: to influence behaviour, first describe precisely which behaviour you mean.

Behaviour Change Wheel and COM-B. Susan Michie, Maartje van Stralen and Robert West developed the Behaviour Change Wheel from nineteen existing frameworks for behaviour change interventions (Michie, van Stralen & West, 2011). At its centre is the COM-B model: behaviour arises in a system of capability, opportunity and motivation. Around it lie intervention functions and policy categories. The accompanying book turns this into a design method (Michie, Atkins & West, 2014). The first stage is "understand the behaviour": define the problem in behavioural terms, select a target behaviour, specify that behaviour and identify what needs to change (Atkins & Michie, 2015). Specifying means answering six questions: who, what, when, where, how often and with whom. Using COM-B to analyse causes of behaviour is covered in Behavioural diagnostic framework: meaning and application.

The TACT principle. Icek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein showed that attitudes and behaviour correlate strongly mainly when both are measured equally specifically (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). This principle of compatibility uses four elements: target (what or whom the behaviour is directed at), action, context and time. A general attitude predicts a single, specific action modestly at best (Ajzen, Fishbein, Lohmann & Albarracín, 2018). Presseau and colleagues extended TACT into AACTT by adding the actor, who performs the behaviour (Presseau et al., 2019).

Intervention Mapping. This planning method from health promotion started with a matrix of programme objectives as its first step (Bartholomew, Parcel & Kok, 1998). In the current six-step version, you formulate behavioural outcomes and break them down into performance objectives: what a person needs to do to carry out the behaviour (Fernandez et al., 2019).

The addition "organisational" keeps visible whose objective it is. That is an editorial choice by Neurofactor, not a term from these sources.

A behavioural objective is specific enough when an outsider can establish whether the behaviour has taken place. Compare "visitors pay more attention to hygiene" with "visitors disinfect their hands at the dispenser immediately after entering through the main entrance, on every visit". Only the second can be observed.

A workable formulation contains:

• Who (actor): the defined group that performs the behaviour, for example "visitors of patients" rather than "everyone".
• What (action): one concrete, observable action.
• When (time): the moment or event at which the behaviour should take place.
• Where (context): the physical or digital place.
• How often: once, on every occasion or at a set frequency.
• With or for whom (target): only if relevant to the behaviour.

The right level of detail depends on what is measurable, useful and practical for your application (Presseau et al., 2019). Too coarse makes measurement impossible; too fine makes the objective unmanageable.

A communication objective concerns what people see, know or remember. An attitude objective concerns what people think or intend, such as a more positive attitude or a stronger intention. A behavioural objective concerns what people actually do.

The three are related but not interchangeable, as research on the intention–behaviour gap shows. Paschal Sheeran quantified this gap with a meta-analysis of meta-analyses and discussed factors that influence the relationship, including habits (Sheeran, 2002). A meta-analysis of 47 experimental tests found that a medium-to-large change in intention (d = 0.66) led on average to a small-to-medium change in behaviour (d = 0.36) (Webb & Sheeran, 2006). According to a later review, the gap arises mainly among people who intend to act but do not: they forget, miss the opportunity or fall back into habits (Sheeran & Webb, 2016).

That is why awareness and support are not behavioural objectives. They can be intermediate objectives if your analysis shows that a lack of knowledge or support stands in the way of the behaviour; link them to that behaviour.

A behavioural objective also differs from a target group's wants and goals, which describe what people themselves want to achieve. They can overlap but are not the same.

A KPI (key performance indicator) can make a behavioural objective measurable, but not every KPI measures behaviour; reach, for example, is a communication indicator.

1. Define the problem in behavioural terms. Which behaviour of which group contributes to the problem? An outcome such as "fewer infections" is not a behaviour.
2. List possible behaviours, often of several groups.
3. Prioritise. Assess each candidate on expected impact, how easily the behaviour can be changed and possible spillover effects on other behaviour (Atkins & Michie, 2015). Also consider whether you can measure the behaviour reliably.
4. Specify the chosen behaviour in terms of who, what, when, where, how often and, where needed, with or for whom.
5. Make it measurable. Decide how, among whom and over what period you record the behaviour, and carry out a baseline measurement before you set a target value.
6. Analyse what needs to change. Investigate with the target group which capability, opportunity or motivation is missing. Only then choose an approach; see also From target group profile to communication strategy and From target group insights to testable messages.

This example is fictional and intended as an illustration.

Situation. A hospital wants visitors to disinfect their hands more often at the dispensers in the entrance. The original objective: "make visitors more aware of hand hygiene".

Decision question. Which behaviour does the hospital want to achieve exactly, and how do you establish whether that succeeds?

Available information. There is a poster, and staff believe that "few visitors" use the dispenser. Data on actual use are missing.

Suitable approach. The team reformulates the objective: "Visitors of patients (who) disinfect their hands with hand sanitiser at the dispenser (what) immediately after entering through the main entrance (when and where), on every visit (how often)." The team also weighs disinfection at the ward door but chooses the main entrance for now: most visitors pass it and the behaviour is easy to observe. It uses fixed observation periods on different days and times and a predefined definition of "disinfected". A counter in the dispenser records only how often it is pressed, not by whom, so it is at most a supplementary indication. In short conversations, the team explores whether visitors notice the dispenser and can reach it easily, including from a wheelchair.

Possible interpretation. The baseline is a starting point. If visitors often overlook the dispenser, the cause lies more in opportunity than knowledge, and moving the dispenser makes more sense than another poster.

Next step. Choose an adjustment and test it over a defined period using the same measurement method. No results are known in this example.

• Formulating an outcome as behaviour. "Fewer infections" or "more sign-ups" is a result, not an action by a specific group.
• Too much behaviour in one objective. You can no longer see which action changes.
• Assuming a single cause. According to COM-B, behaviour results from the interplay of capability, opportunity and motivation. A well-formulated objective does not tell you which factor is missing; that requires analysis.
• Treating a sharp objective as a guarantee. Specification makes measuring and testing possible, but does not change behaviour itself. Only testing in your own context shows whether an approach works.
• Equating the organisation's objective with the target group's interest. What the organisation wants is not automatically what the target group wants or what is good for it; make that trade-off explicit.
• Skipping ethics. Behavioural objectives concern other people's behaviour. Keep participation voluntary, be open about the objective and watch for groups that could be disadvantaged. The Behaviour Change Wheel includes acceptability, side effects and equity among the criteria for choosing interventions (Atkins & Michie, 2015). Nudging and reactance have their own articles.

An organisational behavioural objective makes concrete what an organisation wants a target group to do: who, what, when, where and how often. Unlike communication and attitude objectives, it concerns action, and a favourable intention does not automatically lead to action. Formulate, prioritise and measure the behaviour before you choose an approach, and treat the objective as a starting point for analysis and testing. It remains the organisation's objective, not automatically the target group's interest.