Signs don’t work, here’s what to do instead
We see signs everywhere. From road signs which indicate how fast to drive, when stop, and where to go, to warning labels on household products, and everything in between. In business we also use signs everywhere. These signs tell us how to operate equipment, where to store materials and maybe even what do to in case of an emergency. These signs are incredibly effective at communicating information and supporting a safe work environment. However, within the domain of problem solving, signs such as these are often relied upon in ways that make them ineffective; management tries to change or coax an individual’s behavior through the use of signs. In this regard, signs often fall short of their intended impact. In this article, we explore why signs often fail to alter behavior and propose alternative approaches rooted in human factors engineering.
Benefits of Signs
As we already mentioned, signs are ubiquitous in our lives, and rightly so. Before delving into their limitations, we should acknowledge the benefits of signs and where they are most effective. Signs are excellent tools for conveying information quickly and universally. One of the best ways a sign can be used is as a warning. CAUTION or DANGER. Signs are most effective because they inform the individual or user of a potential risk that they might not otherwise know about. In this case, signs are effective conduits of human behavior because the information alone is enough to make individual make the desired decision or take the desired path. Most people will willingly stay away from an electrical panel once they realize what it is and the danger of electrical shock.
Limitations of signs
However, there are several examples of the use of signs that are not effective. “No smoking” or “Fasten Seatbelt” warnings on dashboards rarely make the same impact as the caution, warning, or danger signs.
If we take the “No Smoking” sign as an example we immediately see its limitation. Maybe some socially minded, altruistic smokers might care that they’re lighting up in a “No Smoking” area, but most will not. Many smokers won’t even adhere to the 200-foot rule about smoking near entrances and exits. The real force of the “No Smoking” sign comes from its enforcement. The sign then, does not so much coax behavior out of the individual as it informs them of the possibility of further enforcement and possible penalty if they violate the rule.
This is a radically different paradigm from the “Warning” labels we mentioned earlier, where no further penalty or enforcement is needed to coax behavior. Speed limit signs work in the exact same way, on fear of penalty and enforcement rather than information alone. I’m more compelled by the blinking and beeping of my seatbelt sign than I am by the notification itself.
Signs and labels are manifestly ineffective when there is no possibility of enforcement, or when enforcement is infrequent and rare. The picture below is from a job I had in college at a Grocery Store. The bold, red, and unmistakable severity of the message “Fire Exit Do Not Block” is clear. Nobody can claim that they don’t understand the purpose of message of the sign. Yet, its instruction was still violated. With no expectation of enforcement or penalty (or a very small penalty) for blocking the fire exit, employees at the grocery store found it more advantageous to store materials on the loading docks in this location, rather than finding a better, more correct location to store the products. In this case the benefits of easy, immediate storage trumped the sign, fire safety standards, and common sense.
Another example of ineffective signage can be found on product use instructions. Take the example of the Kimberly-Clark paper towel dispenser below. It is a phenomenal example of attempting to use signs to cover up poor design. The sign indicates the proper way to operate the dispenser, using two hands to pull the towel, instead of one. However, it does nothing to prevent an individual from pulling one handed, which causes errors, when the next towel is not advanced. That which is found to be easier, quicker, and comfortable will always be the path of humans, regardless of what signage or instructions are in place in place. Real sustainable improvement comes from changing the path of least resistance to coax human behavior.
Making things better
The Kimberly-Clark paper towel dispenser really rubs me the wrong way. No doubt the company is familiar with user behavior and knows that individuals usually use one hand to pull the towel, yet they persisted in designing a design that was incompatible with this user behavior. Moreover, rather than altering the design or adding feature that made it more difficult to use only one hand, they tried to mask the poor design by adding usage instructions. Now when I go to pull the paper towel with one hand and find that it didn’t advance to the next towel, I blame myself since I didn’t “do it correctly.” There must be a better way.
Instead of relying solely on signage, there are several alternative strategies that can be used to improve human behavior and performance:
Inspection: Of course we’ve already discussed this. Inspection, monitoring and enforcement is an effective way to change human behavior in a desired direction. Police officers do this to enforce speed limits and parking standards but it’s also true in other industries. Some manufacturing plants have 100% inspection standards that check the work of others to ensure standards are maintained and enforced. Fire marshals, OSHA inspections, the Internal Revenue Service and many other organizations all make auditing and inspection and integral part of their plan to maintain and assure compliance with desirable standards. Inspection and monitoring, however is usually extremely cost and manpower intensive, which is why I always advise others to find other ways.
Error-Proofing: Designing products and environments to eliminate or minimize the possibility of undesired user behavior is an incredibly impactful way to change user behavior. Examples abound in industry and daily life. Childproof caps on medicine bottles reduce the risk of accidental ingestion more effectively than warning labels alone. Many electrical panels in public spaces not only have warning labels but also have locks that must be opened in order to access them. My favorite recent example that I’ve found is the ATM machine, which forces you to take your card before cash is dispensed, ensuring you don’t forget your card and cause extra administrative work.
The possibility of error-proofing to engineer human behavior is an exciting one. As the examples above demonstrate, these solutions don’t have to be expensive and can still be incredibly impactful. Error-proofed solutions are manifestly better than signs and warnings. They are also cheaper and more sustainable than inspection and enforcement practices.
Conclusion
Signs play a crucial role in communicating information. However, their ability to change individual behavior is inherently limited. Human nature shows us that signs will quickly be ignored and disregarded when it becomes convenient to do so. Rather than trying to fight against human behavior, we should accept it as is, and seek solutions that change the path of least resistance. Strategies such as inspection and error-proofing design are better alternatives than relying on signs alone. By understanding these limitations and exploring innovative approaches, we can enhance the effectiveness of our problem-solving endeavors.
