Most organisations are trying to change behaviour, but very few are doing it effectively.
Earlier this year, James Elfer’s Harvard Business Review article gets to the heart of why so many leadership, inclusion, and performance initiatives fail to deliver real impact. His argument is simple but uncomfortable. Information and inspiration are not enough. Training and communication alone rarely translate into sustained behaviour change.
Elfer draws on behavioural science research and large scale organisational experiments to show how well intentioned programmes often miss the moment that matters most, the point at which people actually make decisions.
This matters deeply for inclusion, because inclusion lives or dies in everyday choices. Who gets interviewed. Who gets feedback. Whose ideas are heard. Who feels safe to speak up.
Why training so often fails
For decades, organisations have relied on an intuitive model of change. Educate people about the right thing to do. Build their skills. Trust that behaviour will follow.
The evidence suggests otherwise. Elfer references earlier research showing that US organisations spend over $160 billion annually on training, yet most struggle to convert this investment into meaningful behaviour change or improved performance.
The problem is not motivation or intent. It is design. Behaviour is shaped by context, timing and decision environments, not just by knowledge or values. Elfer introduces an alternative approach: the 4T model of behaviour change.
A more precise way to drive inclusive behaviour
The 4T model focuses on four steps: targeting a specific behaviour, developing a theory of change, designing a timely intervention and testing its impact.
1. The first step is ruthless prioritisation. Instead of aiming to shift culture in the abstract, organisations identify one concrete behaviour or decision that matters most. For inclusion, this might be how hiring managers shortlist candidates or how performance ratings are discussed.
2. The second step is diagnosis. What is actually getting in the way of the desired behaviour? This requires listening to employees, using organisational data and engaging seriously with the research evidence, not assuming the barrier is a knowledge gap.
3. Third is timeliness and this is where many initiatives fail. Interventions work best when they appear at the exact moment a decision is being made. Elfer shares multiple examples of this in action. A short intervention delivered just before CV screening increased the likelihood that women and non national candidates were selected for interview. A simple prompt at the start of interviews that normalised nerves helped candidates perform more authentically. A reframing of inclusion as an aspiration rather than a fixed identity increased managers’ willingness to act and improved team engagement.
4. Finally, the model insists on testing. Rather than assuming success, organisations use controlled trials to see what actually works, then scale or adapt accordingly.
What this means for inclusive leadership
For leaders and HR teams, the implications are clear. Well knowledge and information is an important foundation, inclusion is not built through awareness alone. It is built through hundreds of small, well designed interventions that reshape how decisions are made in real time.
This approach also challenges a common comfort. You cannot change everything at once. Progress comes from portfolios of targeted actions that accumulate over time.
If inclusion is truly a priority, then the question shifts from “How do we educate people?” to “Which behaviour matters most, and when can we influence it?”
You can read the original article here: https://hbr.org/2026/01/to-change-company-culture-start-with-one-high-impact-behavior
