An original Barry Spud satire.

For months, I have enthusiastically supported the statement “Context drives behaviour.”

Unfortunately, I first heard it at a safety conference while standing beside the coffee machine.

I thought the speaker said:

“Con text drives behaviour.”

Finally, I thought. Someone willing to explain the business model.

I immediately purchased the workbook.

A misunderstanding with commercial potential

My colleague Sadie Tater discovered the error while reviewing our new training package.

“Barry, why have you written ‘con text’ as two words?”

“Because the con and the text perform different functions.”

She put down her clipboard.

“The text makes the promise,” I explained. “The con is getting people to believe the promise without asking awkward questions.”

“Barry. He meant context.”

“Exactly. Put the words in a gold frame, surround them with postnominals and charge admission. Presentation matters.”

Sadie suggested I read Risk Is Relative to Context, but Context Doesn’t Drive Behaviour.

I was immediately concerned.

That title contains a distinction.

Distinctions are very difficult to embroider on a polo shirt.

Put the context in the driver’s seat

To settle the matter, I conducted a practical demonstration.

I placed our context assessment folder behind the steering wheel of the company ute.

Then I waited.

Nothing.

I added a high-vis vest.

Still nothing.

Sadie asked what I was doing.

“Testing whether context drives.”

“Have you put the key in?”

“I don’t want to contaminate the experiment with human involvement.”

After twenty minutes, Kevin got in and moved the vehicle.

I recorded this as a successful intervention by context.

Kevin claimed he had driven it.

Typical worker. Always trying to take credit away from the framework.

Same room, inconveniently different people

Our next experiment involved a toolbox talk.

Everyone stood in the same workshop, beneath the same lights, listening to the same supervisor.

One worker asked a question. Another stayed quiet. A third made a joke.

Kevin looked annoyed.

I checked the room.

Same context.

Four different responses.

Clearly, somebody was failing to follow the principle.

Sadie suggested that their experiences, relationships, expectations and interpretations might differ.

“That’s a lot of things,” I said.

“Yes.”

“Could we call them all context?”

“Would that help explain the differences?”

“It would help preserve the slide.”

The context expansion pack

This gave me an excellent idea.

Whenever someone identifies something our explanation has missed, we simply add it to context.

Beliefs? Context.

Habits? Context.

History? Context.

The way someone understands what is happening? Premium context.

Soon, context included everything.

This made the principle wonderfully difficult to challenge.

“Why did he do that?”

“Context.”

“Which part?”

“We’ll need a workshop.”

“Why did somebody else respond differently?”

“Different context.”

“But you just said they shared the same context.”

“That was the introductory module.”

Sadie changes the context

Sadie decided to test whether changing the workplace would change behaviour.

She replaced our faded SPEAK UP poster with a larger one.

Nobody spoke.

She added WE VALUE YOUR FEEDBACK.

Still nothing.

Finally, Kevin said that the last person who raised a concern had been publicly humiliated.

Sadie nodded thoughtfully.

“The poster needs to be closer to the doorway.”

Kevin suggested changing how management responded.

“That sounds expensive,” I said. “Could we try a different font first?”

We selected one called Open Sans.

It sounded approachable.

My con text definitely works

While Sadie struggled with the workforce, I tested my original interpretation.

I emailed a prospective client:

“YOUR ORGANISATION MAY HAVE CRITICAL GAPS YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT.”

Within minutes, he requested a meeting.

Then I sent:

“OUR EXCLUSIVE FRAMEWORK PROVIDES CONFIDENCE IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLD.”

He requested a quotation.

Finally:

“EARLY-BIRD PRICING ENDS FRIDAY.”

He signed.

There it was.

Con text driving purchasing behaviour.

Sadie pointed out that his response also involved trust, anxiety, budget authority, previous experience and what he thought our offer meant.

I asked her to stop introducing humans into my success story.

A small correction

We have now revised the training package.

The original slide said:

CONTEXT DRIVES BEHAVIOUR.

The updated slide says:

CON TEXT DRIVES BILLABLE HOURS.

Kevin said this was the first genuinely clear statement we had produced.

Sadie called it a reputational risk.

I called the printer.

Sometimes a misunderstanding is simply an innovation waiting for a trademark.

And if anyone questions the claims in my brochure?

I’ll explain that they’ve taken my con text out of context.