Read The Small BIG: Small Changes That Spark Big Influence for Free Online

down to subtly influence the workforce to slack off or, even worse, engage in some sort of workplace malfeasance.
    So what SMALL BIGs could managers, city council members, or even policy makers undertake that could lead to big differences in encouraging and maintaining desirable behaviors in their communities and public places?
    One potential small change comes from a relatively new insight gleaned from recent social psychological research conducted by the researchers of the studies we described above. Contrary to common belief, arranging for people to inhabit an ordered environment (no dirty cups in the staff kitchen, a litter-free park, gleaming sidewalks) does not create the strongest context for encouraging desirable behaviors. Instead the strongest context for encouraging desirable behaviors comes from evidence that clearly conveys other people’s respect for norms. Therefore the most effective SMALL BIG is not to arrange for people to inhabit an already ordered environment, but instead for people to inhabit an environment where they can witness order being restored. In other words, in an office environment, the best SMALL BIG action might be to change the times when kitchen and staff changing room areas are cleaned. Rather than have cleaners at the ready after everyone has left for the day, it might be better to arrange some overlap so that staffs can see the restoration of their environment.
    A related SMALL BIG that government officials could undertake would be to develop programs that encourage citizens not simply to refrain from undesirable actions, but to undo the undesirable actions of others in a public way. Municipalities could allocate resources for the formation and/or support of citizens groups who want to demonstrate their disapproval of disordered environments by cleaning debris from lakes and beaches, graffiti from buildings, and litter from streets. A study by one of us, with Raymond Reno and Carl Kallgren, suggests that the overall effect could be dramatic. It showed that, under normal circumstances, passersby given handbills littered 38 percent of the time. But passersby who first saw a man pick up someone else’s litter from the environment littered the handbill only 4 percent of the time.
    It would be a stretch, of course, to claim that a failure to police a person’s habit of leaving decaying fish tacos or four-week-old milk in the company fridge will lead to your company becoming the next Enron. But we will claim that because contexts can shape behavior as much as any amount of informational content, even seemingly small changes to an environment can make a big difference.

Chapter 5.
How could a SMALL change in name make a BIG difference to your game?
    I n late October 2012 Hurricane Sandy bulldozed its way through the Caribbean and across the mid-Atlantic before hitting land again in the northeastern United States and leaving a trail of destruction and devastation in its wake. Violent gusts nearing 100 mph accompanied by lashing rain left widespread damage estimated at over $75 billion. In the aftermath, many thousands of individuals as well as organizations such as the American Red Cross and the United Nations marshaled and directed resources toward cleanup and relief operations. Corporations and businesses helped, too, as did a number of network news channels that held telethons and made appeals that generated millions of dollars in donations.
    The role played by the news networks wasn’t just limited to encouraging contributions that supported relief efforts. They were also responsible for generating a series of unofficial names for the hurricane—from provocative to downright fear-inducing. “Snowicane” was one such example presumably designed to highlight the avalanche proportions of projected snowfall that would accompany Sandy. “Frankenstorm” was another—a reference to the storm’s close proximity to Halloween.
    While we are not aware of evidence that suggests assigning a