Changing Yourself is More Efficient Than Changing Others - Evidence from Psychology Research

• Target Audience: IT Engineers, Team Leaders, Managers
• Prerequisites: None
• Reading Time: 10 minutes

Overview

“If only that team member were a bit more…” “If my manager would just…” — Many engineers have had these thoughts. However, psychology research consistently shows that attempting to change others is often counterproductive, while changing your own behavior and reactions is far more efficient and leads to greater happiness.

This article explains why a “change yourself” approach is more effective than a “change others” approach, based on evidence from psychology and behavioral science research.

Why Is It Hard to “Change Others”?

Trying to Change People Backfires

Research in relationship psychology shows that “regulation attempts” — trying to change partners or colleagues — often don’t work and actually decrease relationship satisfaction¹.

Specifically:

• When change attempts fail, the other person’s “flaws” become more noticeable
• The person being asked to change feels unappreciated
• Pressure to change undermines autonomy and triggers psychological reactance (resistance)

Paradoxically, the very act of trying to change someone prevents change and damages the relationship.

Gottman’s “Paradox of Acceptance”

Psychologist John Gottman, who has studied marital relationships for over 40 years, wrote in ‘The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work’²:

“People can change only if they feel that they are basically liked and accepted the way they are. When people feel criticized, disliked, and unappreciated they are unable to change. Instead, they feel under siege and dig in to protect themselves.”

This applies to the workplace too. The response differs greatly between “This code is terrible, rewrite it” versus “This approach is interesting. Have you considered an alternative from a performance perspective?”

Scientific Benefits of “Changing Yourself”

Locus of Control

In 1966, psychologist Julian Rotter proposed the concept of “Locus of Control”³. This represents the difference in belief about whether life events are caused by one’s own actions (internal locus) or external forces (external locus).

A 2024 large-scale study (analyzing 170,000 data points from 37 countries) confirmed a strong positive correlation between internal locus of control and subjective well-being⁴.

Furthermore, people with an internal locus of control:

• Are more likely to maintain healthy lifestyles
• Have higher resilience to stressful events
• Are more proactive in human capital investment (learning and skill development)
• Are more likely to save for the future

This demonstrates that the belief “I can change my situation through my own actions” actually improves behaviors and outcomes.

Self-Efficacy

“Self-efficacy,” proposed by Albert Bandura, is the belief in one’s ability to perform specific behaviors⁵. Numerous randomized controlled trials have confirmed that self-efficacy is a powerful predictor of behavior change⁶.

People with high self-efficacy:

• Actively tackle difficult tasks
• Persist without giving up after failure
• Learn new skills faster

Importantly, self-efficacy for changing one’s own behavior is more strongly associated with happiness and health than self-efficacy for changing others’ behavior⁷.

Ancient Wisdom and Modern Science

The Stoic “Dichotomy of Control”

About 2,000 years ago, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus taught:

“Some things are within our power, while others are not.”

This “Dichotomy of Control” forms the foundation of modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)⁸.

The 2022 Stoic Week study (with over 2,000 participants) confirmed strong correlations between practicing this principle and well-being⁹:

• “Focus on what you can control”: correlation with flourishing r=0.51 (very high)
• “Let go of what you cannot control”: correlation with positive emotion balance r=0.47 (high)

ACT and Psychological Flexibility

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is an evidence-based psychotherapy supported by numerous randomized controlled trials worldwide⁶.

The core of ACT:

• Accept what cannot be changed (others’ behavior, the past, emotions themselves)
• Commit to what can be changed (your own behavior)

While traditional approaches try to “control unpleasant thoughts and emotions,” ACT aims to “change your relationship with them.” This frees you from inefficient efforts to control others and allows you to focus your energy on your own actions.

Using Willpower Resources Wisely

Ego Depletion

According to research by psychologist Roy Baumeister and colleagues, willpower (self-control capacity) is a limited resource that depletes with use¹⁰. This is called “ego depletion.”

As hundreds of studies show:

• Performance on self-control tasks decreases after performing previous self-control tasks
• Maintaining and managing interpersonal relationships depletes willpower
• Interpersonal conflict is both a major cause and result of ego depletion

Trying to change others consumes large amounts of this limited willpower resource. Changing your own reactions and behaviors, while using the same resource, has a higher success rate and better return on investment.

“Changing the Environment” as a Third Option

Psychologist B.F. Skinner stated¹¹:

“When you get old, instead of trying to change yourself, change your environment.”

This provides a perspective beyond the binary of changing others versus changing yourself. By designing environments that facilitate desired behaviors, you can achieve behavior change while minimizing willpower depletion.

Thinking About IT Engineering Contexts

Application to Code Reviews

When a team member’s coding style bothers you:

Inefficient Approach (trying to change others):

• Ask “Why do you always write it this way?”
• Repeat the same feedback every time
• Feel frustrated while reviewing

Efficient Approach (change yourself/environment):

• Introduce linters and formatters for automation
• Document coding standards and integrate them into CI
• Improve how you write review comments

Application to Team Communication

When you face challenges communicating with your boss or team members:

Inefficient Approach:

• Repeatedly demand “Please give clearer instructions”
• Wait expecting the other person to change

Efficient Approach:

• Proactively ask clarifying questions
• Take initiative in creating meeting notes and documentation
• Propose and practice using asynchronous communication tools

Suggestions: Practical Approaches

Below are practical suggestions based on research evidence. However, effects vary by individual and may not apply to all situations.

1. Distinguish Between the “Circle of Concern” and “Circle of Influence”

This concept introduced in Stephen Covey’s “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People”¹² is a modern expression of the Stoic dichotomy of control.

• Circle of Concern: Things you care about but cannot control (others’ behavior, economic conditions, past events)
• Circle of Influence: Things you can influence (your behavior, reactions, choices)

By consciously focusing energy on the “Circle of Influence,” you can maximize effectiveness.

2. Distinguish Between “Acceptance” and “Giving Up”

Acceptance is not giving up. In the ACT context:

• Acceptance: Recognizing reality as it is and choosing effective actions from there
• Giving Up: Stopping action, abandoning change

Rather than giving up thinking “This person won’t change,” recognize that “Changing this person is outside my control” and focus on what you can do.

3. Start with Small Self-Changes

Self-efficacy is most effectively enhanced through mastery experiences⁵.

• Start with small behavior changes
• Record and acknowledge successes
• Gradually expand the scope

Changing Yourself Changes Those Around You

Up to this point, we’ve discussed how “trying to change others is futile.” Interestingly, however, when you change yourself, those around you often change as a result. This is another reason why you don’t need to try to change people directly.

Social Learning Theory (Modeling)

Albert Bandura, in addition to his self-efficacy research, also proposed “Social Learning Theory”¹³. According to this theory, people learn new behaviors by observing others’ actions.

The key is the “Vicarious Learning” process:

1. Attention: Notice others’ behavior
2. Retention: Remember that behavior
3. Reproduction: Be able to perform that behavior yourself
4. Motivation: Find value in that behavior

In other words, if you practice new behavior patterns, people around you who observe this may naturally learn and change.

“People Who Can Change” Will Change on Their Own

What this theory suggests is a simple fact:

• People ready for change will change on their own when they see good models (examples)
• People not ready for change won’t change no matter how much you persuade them

This is why being a good model yourself is more efficient than directly trying to change others. People who can change will naturally learn from your behavior and change. You don’t need to waste energy on those who can’t change.

Example in Engineering Contexts

When you want to introduce new practices to your team:

Inefficient Approach:

• Repeatedly assert “Everyone should write tests”
• Interrogate “Why don’t you write tests?”

Efficient Approach:

• Take the lead in writing tests and demonstrate their effectiveness
• Share cases where tests helped catch bugs early
• Kindly teach those who show interest when they ask questions

With the latter approach, team members interested in change will naturally start learning. You also avoid the stress of trying to forcibly change uninterested members.

Summary

Psychology research consistently shows:

1. Attempting to change others is often counterproductive and damages relationships
2. Internal locus of control (the belief you can change your situation through your actions) is strongly correlated with happiness, health, and resilience
3. Willpower is a limited resource, and investing in “self-change” rather than low-success-probability “other-change” is more efficient
4. The wisdom of Stoic philosophy from about 2,000 years ago is scientifically supported by modern CBT and ACT
5. Through Social Learning Theory, when you change, “people who can change” around you will naturally change too

This doesn’t mean “ignore others.” Rather, changing your own behavior and reactions has a higher probability of indirectly improving situations and relationships. And among those around you who observe your change, those ready for change will naturally be influenced and change.

To use a programming analogy: you can’t directly change an external API’s behavior, but you can implement error handling and retry logic in your own code. Similarly, you can’t directly change others’ behavior, but you can optimize your own responses. And when you write good code, team members who see it may learn from it and incorporate it into their own work.

---

Note:

The research cited in this article has been verified through:

• Confirmation in academic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, etc.)
• Verification of paper information on official journal websites
• Cross-verification through multiple independent sources

Regarding ego depletion theory, there has been recent debate about replicability. However, as of 2024, studies confirming replicability have also been published¹⁰.

References

References corresponding to citation numbers in the main text are listed in numerical order.

Additional References (not numbered in main text)

• Disentangling Acceptance: Direct and Indirect Effects of Partner Acceptance on Felt Acceptance and Relationship Satisfaction - PMC (2022). [Reliability: High]

• Can having internal locus of control insure against negative shocks? - PMC (2017). [Reliability: High]

• Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: A Transdiagnostic Behavioral Intervention - PMC (2017). [Reliability: High]

1. Ideal Standards, Acceptance, and Relationship Satisfaction: Latitudes of Differential Effects - Frontiers in Psychology (2017). [Reliability: High] ↩︎

2. Be the Change You Wish to See in Your Relationship - The Gottman Institute. Gottman, J. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. [Reliability: High] ↩︎

3. Internal vs External Locus of Control: 7 Examples & Theories - Positive Psychology (2024). [Reliability: Medium-High] ↩︎

4. How Locus of Control Predicts Subjective Well-Being and its Inequality - Journal of Happiness Studies (2024). [Reliability: High] ↩︎

5. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change - Bandura, A. (1977). Psychological Review. [Reliability: High] ↩︎ ↩︎²

6. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Psychological Well-Being: A Narrative Review - PMC (2025). [Reliability: High] ↩︎ ↩︎²

7. Locus of control, self-control, and health outcomes - SSM - Population Health (2023). [Reliability: High] ↩︎

8. The Application of Stoic Philosophy to Modern Emotional Regulation - International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (2025). [Reliability: Medium-High] ↩︎

9. The Stoic Dichotomy of Control in Practice - Psychology Today (2023). [Reliability: Medium] ↩︎

10. Self-control and limited willpower: Current status of ego depletion theory and research - Current Opinion in Psychology (2024). [Reliability: High] ↩︎ ↩︎²

11. Behavior Change - Duckworth, A. L., & Gross, J. J. (2020). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. [Reliability: High] ↩︎

12. The Power of Covey’s Circle of Concern, Influence, and Control - Modern.works. [Reliability: Medium] ↩︎

13. Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory In Psychology - Simply Psychology (2024). [Reliability: Medium-High] ↩︎