Organization Align

McKinsey Influence Model

The McKinsey influence model treats role modeling, understanding, formal mechanisms, and skill building as the conditions of a change that sticks.

The questionWhat would have to be true for these people to change how they work, and which of those conditions are missing?

Model · Emily Lawson and Colin Price, McKinsey, 2003

Understanding and convictionPeople see the point
ReinforcementFormal mechanisms pull the same way
Talent and skillsPeople know how to do it
Role modelingPeople they respect do it

Schematic of the four conditions that support a change in behavior.

When to use it

A change program has a clear plan but adoption is slow, and you need to find out why.
Leaders have communicated a change several times and want to know why behavior has not moved.
You are planning a change and want a completeness check on the human side: the story, the incentives, the learning, and the visible leaders.
A team keeps relying on one lever, such as training or communication, and you want to show the others.

When to avoid it

The change is a decision and not a change in behavior, such as selling off a unit. Nobody's mind has to change for it to happen. The original article separates levels of change in the same way.
You need to understand how individuals experience loss and transition. Bridges is built for that.
You need to explain why an organization's design does not fit its strategy. Nadler-Tushman or Galbraith serve that better.
You want a forecast that a program will succeed. The independent evidence for this particular set of four is thin, so use it as a checklist and not as a prediction.

Overview

The influence model is McKinsey’s set of four conditions for changing how people behave at work. People understand and agree with the change, formal mechanisms reinforce it, they have the skills for it, and people they respect visibly do it. It supports a diagnosis of why a change program has not moved behavior, and a plan that covers the gaps.

It is a checklist drawn from psychology research, not a tested prediction. Support for the four-part set comes mostly from McKinsey’s own cases and surveys. It works best when applied group by group, since an executive team and a frontline team can have different gaps.

The four conditions

Understanding and conviction

People see the point of the change and agree with it, at least enough to try. This takes a story that links each person's work to why the change is worth it, told in terms that make sense to them as individuals. An instruction to behave differently is not enough.

Reinforcement through formal mechanisms

Structures, processes, measures, and rewards pull the same way as the new behavior. If managers are asked to coach their staff and coaching is absent from their scorecards, they are unlikely to do much of it. The authors also note that reinforcement alone does not hold, and needs the other three.

Talent and skills

People know how to do the new thing in their own job, not only in general terms. Adults learn through cycles of absorbing, trying, and applying, so the training is split into pieces with time in between, and people explain to others how they will apply it.

Role modeling

People copy those they respect, who differ by function and level, so the top team is not enough. The original article gives this condition particular weight. Individual role models also need the groups around them to confirm the behavior.

What it is not

A sequence. The conditions are separate, and the original article is explicit that the case it describes did not apply them in a neat order. Use them as a set of checks.
A change plan. It is a completeness check on the human conditions. It says nothing about technical work, governance, or timing.
A tested predictor. The model synthesizes ideas from psychology, and the support cited for the four-part set is mostly McKinsey's own cases and surveys.

The steps

Define the behavior that has to change

Write it in observable terms, for each group. "Handlers record each contact in the case system on the day it happens" can be checked, and "adopt the system" cannot. Count how many people and which roles are involved. What comes out is a short list of target behaviors by group.
Check each condition for each group

Take the four conditions in turn for each affected group, using interviews, scorecards, training records, and direct observation. Rate each as in place, weak, or missing, and note the evidence. Groups differ, so a frontline team and a regional manager will often score differently. What comes out is a grid of ratings with evidence.
Find the gaps that explain the stall

Pick the two or three gaps that most plausibly explain why behavior has not changed. Look especially for contradictions, such as a message that says one thing and a scorecard that measures another. What comes out is a short list of binding gaps.
Design actions for each gap

For understanding, rework the story with the people affected. For reinforcement, change the measures and rewards. For skills, schedule learning in stages with practice time. For role modeling, name the leaders at each level and the specific behavior you need from them. Give every action an owner. What comes out is an action list with owners.
Re-check after a cycle

Measure the behavior, not attendance or message reach, and then rate the four conditions again. Repeat the check for each group, since fixing one condition often reveals the next gap. What comes out is a measured result and an updated grid.

In practice

Eighteen months after an insurer moved its claims handlers to a new case system, usage was patchy, and leadership had run three communication pushes. The consultant took the four conditions group by group. Handlers had been told the system was for efficiency, and many read that as a headcount plan, so they had little conviction. Their scorecards counted claims closed per day, which the new system slowed in the first weeks, and nobody had changed them. Training had been one two-hour session before go-live, with no practice afterward.

The role models were the clearest gap. Team leaders kept their own spreadsheets alongside the system, and handlers had noticed. The plan put the leaders first: they would stop the spreadsheets, and review cases only from the system. Scorecards changed next, then follow-up practice sessions. The messaging came last, rewritten to say what the system did for a handler's day. The three communication pushes had put effort into the condition that was easiest to work on, and it was not the one holding the program back.

What you leave with

The target behavior stated in observable terms, for each group.
A four-condition assessment for each group, with the evidence behind each rating.
A short list of gaps that most plausibly explain the lack of change.
Actions with owners for each gap, including what particular leaders must visibly do differently.
A date and a measure for the next check.

Failure points

Communication as the whole program

The program treats understanding and conviction as a messaging campaign. The message gets repeated and nothing else changes, so people hear the same story with the same incentives and the same skills gap.

Reinforcement lagging the message

Scorecards, targets, and pay stay as they were for a year after the new behavior is announced. Employees follow what is measured, so the announcement loses to the scorecard.

One-off training

Skills are treated as an event. Adults need time to try the new behavior and apply it to their own job, and a single session leaves them with the vocabulary and little more.

Role models only at the top

Executives model the behavior, but the middle managers people actually watch do not. Employees copy the people near them, and a gap at that level cancels the effort above it.

Self-rated grids

Leaders closest to the change score it as in place, because they know what they intended. Without interviews and observation below the leadership team, the grid reflects the program's design more than its effect.

The failures above are usually Stakeholder Algebra: while the analysis was precise, the people who decide were not handled correctly.

Origin

The model comes from McKinsey & Company. Emily Lawson and Colin Price, both then in McKinsey's London office, described four conditions for changing mind-sets in "The psychology of change management," published in the McKinsey Quarterly in June 2003: a purpose people believe in, reinforcement systems, the skills the change requires, and consistent role models. The article draws on well-known psychology, citing Festinger on cognitive dissonance, Skinner on reinforcement, Kolb and Argyris on adult learning, and clinical work on role models.

McKinsey's later writing calls it the influence model and states the four actions as fostering understanding and conviction, reinforcing change through formal mechanisms, developing talent and skills, and role modeling. It is McKinsey's own framework and McKinsey's text is copyrighted, so this note describes the model in its own words. No trademark claim is known. The evidence McKinsey cites for it, including a survey of transformations, is McKinsey's own.