Introduction — The Invisibility of Differentiation

Many organisational change initiatives continue to operate under a persistent illusion: the notion of the “average employee”. Whether framed in terms of communication strategies, behavioural nudges or capability-building interventions, many change designs still rely on the assumption that people within an organisation will respond to transformation in largely comparable ways. This homogenising bias runs deep, not only in leadership mindsets, but also in the frameworks that guide change implementation.

Yet decades of research in behavioural science, social psychology and decision theory have shown that individual responses to organisational change are anything but uniform. They are shaped by differing motivational structures, cognitive styles, social identities, local norms, and deeply embedded behavioural heuristics. What appears as resistance in one context may signal ambivalence, inertia, identity dissonance — or even silent agreement — in another. The same intervention may elicit radically different behavioural effects depending on role, team culture, perceived legitimacy of change, and individual cognitive load.

Despite this, most change strategies still offer standardised toolkits, often designed for the median case. The consequence is a systematic misalignment between intervention logic and behavioural reality — a phenomenon that manifests not as dramatic failure, but as quiet underperformance: initiatives stall, behaviours do not shift, and cultural transformation remains aspirational rather than enacted.

Segmentation, understood in behavioural terms, is neither a classificatory exercise nor a means of reducing individual variability to fixed profiles. It is a diagnostic strategy for making visible the structured variability of behavioural responses under conditions of change. This variability is not random noise, but patterned divergence — shaped by role-specific expectations, cognitive framing, social dynamics and perceived legitimacy. As such, segmentation becomes a strategic response to motivational, situational and cognitive diversity: a way of aligning design logics with the differentiated realities of organisational behaviour. Effective change design must begin here, not with generic assumptions about alignment, but with a sharper understanding of how and where behaviour departs from intention.

Segmenting Behaviour – Not Just Clustering Data

The practice of segmentation often enters organisational contexts through the back door of analytics: as clustering algorithms, statistical taxonomies, or scoring models applied to behavioural data. These methods group individuals based on observed similarity—shared attributes, recurrent actions, proximity in high-dimensional data space. While such tools can be useful, they risk mistaking pattern recognition for behavioural understanding.

Behavioural segmentation is not about identifying statistical proximity; it is about interpreting behavioural difference in context. Patterns only become meaningful when situated within the organisational logics, motivational structures and decision environments in which they emerge. A behavioural trace—such as reluctance to adopt a new tool, increased passive participation in meetings, or a spike in error rates—has no intrinsic meaning outside its context. The same behaviour may signal resistance, fatigue, confusion, or rational disengagement depending on the segmental logic in play.

What is needed is not classification, but reframing: from sorting people into labelled clusters to mapping out how behaviour organises itself under specific structural, social, and cognitive conditions. This shift requires combining statistical insight with interpretive reasoning—seeing segmentation not as a retrospective description of the past, but as a predictive lens for anticipating behavioural dynamics. When used in this way, segmentation becomes less a matter of analytics, and more a matter of design.

Predictive Typologies for Segment Construction

Not all segmentation is equal. Descriptive segmentations — whether based on demographics, attitudes or observed behaviours — often serve as a starting point for analysis. They organise information retrospectively, showing how individuals or groups have differed in the past. But when it comes to designing effective change interventions, this retrospective lens proves insufficient. The question is no longer who behaved differently, but who is likely to respond differently under specific conditions of change.

This is where the notion of predictive typologies becomes relevant. Rather than grouping individuals based on surface similarities, predictive typologies identify structurally meaningful patterns that correlate with distinct behavioural tendencies in response to change dynamics. These are not abstract categories, but empirically grounded segment structures designed to support decision making: Which types respond to adaptive leadership? Which disengage under ambiguity? Which require stabilising cues before committing to new routines?

Constructing such typologies requires more than statistical similarity. It calls for behavioural models that differentiate between structurally distinct response logics. Logistic regression can identify segments with elevated resistance probability. Uplift modelling isolates those groups whose behaviour shifts only when targeted precisely. Random forests reveal non-linear readiness structures shaped by interacting variables such as workload, leadership proximity, and perceived agency. These models do not describe personas; they surface decision architectures — patterns that define where responsiveness emerges, and where design must differentiate accordingly.

Predictive typologies do not offer labels. They offer structure. They allow organisations to see variation not as noise, but as signal: the behavioural texture of a system under transformation. And in that structure lies the opportunity to design change not around assumptions of uniformity, but around segments of difference that matter.

What follows when segmentation is no longer used solely to discern behavioural patterns, but becomes a tool for behavioural design — providing a structure for developing interventions that align with differentiated pathways of change?

Segmented Behavioural Design

Behavioural Segmentation for Intervention Design

In the context of behavioural change, segmentation is not primarily concerned with allocating individuals to fixed categories. Rather, it serves to identify recurring patterns in how people respond to specific organisational conditions; patterns that emerge from the interaction between roles, expectations, perceived agency, and the framing of change itself.

A behavioural segment, in this sense, represents a recurring structure of behavioural difference. It describes not who people are, but how they typically respond when confronted with particular forms of organisational disruption or demand. These response patterns are not static. They reflect situated tendencies—such as hesitation, adaptive compliance, procedural disengagement or early initiative that become visible when behaviour is observed in context over time.

This is where the concept of Behavioural Leeway becomes analytically useful. It refers to the range of behavioural variation that can be observed within a segment—differences in how individuals engage, hesitate, comply or withdraw under comparable conditions. This variation is not random. It is shaped by structural factors such as leadership proximity, communication framing, operational flexibility, and the perceived credibility of change.

Segmentation, understood in this way, is not about simplification. It enables organisations to work with complexity in a structured manner — by identifying where behavioural variation is not noise, but a function of context. This includes the ability to distinguish between surface-level disagreement and structurally conditioned non-alignment, or between temporary disengagement and stable resistance profiles.

The strategic relevance lies in how this structure informs behavioural design. By making visible the internal logic of behavioural response, segmentation provides the necessary foundation for designing interventions that align with the actual conditions under which behaviour takes shape. It shifts the design logic from generalised rollout to targeted responsiveness — where the form, intensity and timing of interventions are calibrated to the behavioural characteristics of each segment.

Designing Change Across Segments

When segmentation is used not as a classificatory tool but as a foundation for design, its strategic function shifts. It no longer serves to describe difference, but to identify where interventions must adapt to align with the ways behaviour is organised across the organisation.

Change does not unfold in uniform environments. It is enacted through interaction—between individuals, teams, expectations, and systems. These interactions take shape within behavioural segments that differ in how they process uncertainty, interpret change signals, and respond to pressure. Segments, in this sense, are not categories of people. They are structured domains of behavioural logic that reflect how alignment stabilises—or fails to stabilise—under specific organisational conditions.

To design effectively within this heterogeneity, organisations must move from generalised rollouts to interventions that are differentiated by behavioural segment and contextual readiness. This means identifying where behavioural responsiveness is likely, where inertia persists, and where change requires reframing. Segments make this visible. They indicate not who needs to be targeted, but where the structural conditions allow for intervention to be meaningful, timely, and proportional.

This approach does not assume that behaviour is fixed or entirely situational. It assumes that responsiveness emerges where structural, cognitive, and normative conditions permit variation. Behavioural Leeway refers to the scope for behavioural adjustment within a segment—defined by the degree to which the organisational context allows for interpretation, delay, initiative, or adaptation. It does not describe freedom in principle, but the concrete potential for divergence in how people respond to change under comparable conditions.

Designing for change, in this light, means working with these structural distinctions. Segmentation becomes a means to align intervention logic with differentiated behavioural realities—without personalising action, and without assuming standardisation. It enables the development of context-sensitive interventions that are both operationally coherent and behaviourally plausible.

Designing by Behavioural Segment

Behavioural segmentation becomes operationally meaningful only when it informs how interventions are shaped. Once patterns of behavioural response are structurally understood, the design question shifts—from who should be addressed to how interventions should be timed, framed, and adapted to segment-specific dynamics.

Effective design does not rely on uniform rollout. It calibrates intervention to context—where context is defined not by organisational structure, but by the interplay of segment characteristics, behavioural leeway, and situational conditions. This triad forms the basis for intervention logic: not simply what should be done, but where and under which constraints a behavioural response can plausibly emerge.

In operational terms, this means working with differentiated sets of interventions, each aligned to the behavioural logic of a given segment. These are not personalised solutions in the consumer sense, nor are they driven by individual traits. They are designed for structurally distinct profiles of responsiveness—patterns that differ in how behaviour stabilises under uncertainty, how initiative is interpreted, or how perceived risk is managed. The objective is not simplification, but structured responsiveness: ensuring that interventions meet each segment on its own terms.

This approach supports adaptive behaviour without instrumentalisation. The goal is not behavioural control, but alignment—designing the conditions under which desired actions become viable, repeatable, and resilient within segment-specific boundaries. Behaviour does not need to be enforced. It needs to be made possible—under real constraints, and within real decision environments.

In this light, segmentation becomes more than an analytical technique. It anchors a design logic that links predictive insight to strategic responsiveness—without reverting to one-size-fits-all templates or fragmenting action into overly individualised solutions. It provides the structure for designing change that is both differentiated and coherent.

Conclusion

Behaviour in organisations does not diverge at random. It follows recognisable patterns — shaped by how expectations are framed, how roles are experienced, and how people interpret what is asked of them in context. Where change initiatives overlook this structure, they risk addressing behaviour in ways that miss its logic.

Segmentation provides a means to understand this structure. It does not label individuals or define types. It identifies where behavioural responses tend to cluster and under what conditions they stabilise, shift or resist. These are not static attributes, but structured patterns of alignment and misalignment — patterns shaped by context, role and the distribution of discretion.

Behavioural design builds on this understanding. It does not prescribe what people should do. It informs how interventions can be shaped to correspond with the behavioural logic of a given segment: how people orient themselves, when they respond, and what enables change to take hold without resistance or distortion.

This relationship between segmentation and behavioural design is not a methodological refinement. It constitutes the structural core of behavioural change management. Without segmentation, interventions remain indifferent to how behaviour is organised. Without design, segmentation stays descriptive. Only in their combination does behavioural variation become addressable — and change design operational.

References

Borg, K., Lindsay, J., and Curtis, J. (2021), Targeted change: Using behavioral segmentation to identify and understand plastic consumers and how they respond to media communications, Environmental Communication, 15(8), 1109–1126.

Hrnjic, E., and Tomczak, N. (2019), Machine learning and behavioral economics for personalized choice architecture, arXiv preprint, arXiv:1907.02100.

Jenkins, E. L., Legrand, S., Brennan, L., Molenaar, A., Reid, M., et al. (2021), Psycho-behavioural segmentation in food and nutrition: A systematic scoping review, Nutrients, 13(6), 1795.

Klooster, I. t., Kip, H., van Gemert-Pijnen, L., Crutzen, R., and Kelders, S. (2024), A systematic review on eHealth technology personalization approaches, iScience, 27(9), 110771.

Engl, E., Smittenaar, P., and Sgaier, S. K. (2019), Identifying population segments for effective intervention design and targeting using unsupervised machine learning: an end-to-end guide, Gates Open Research, 3, 1503.