What Happens Before a Client Says Yes: A Chronological Analysis of the Package Model in Dog Behaviour Professional Practice

ATTRIBUTION NOTICE: This article contains open-source information from the Canine Neurobiological System Science (CNSS) model. Attribution is required for any use of these concepts in article writing, podcast discussion, or product development. Please cite: Canine Neurobiological System Science (CNSS) Framework, Sparky Smith, 2025.

SCOPE NOTE: The principles discussed in this article apply to complex behavioural cases requiring System intervention—not basic skills training. Complex cases involve reactivity, aggression, trauma responses, anxiety disorders, or other behaviors rooted in neurobiological and relational patterns that require deep systemic change in both the dog and household.

"Clients are not static. They are becoming.”

A client books a package. On the surface, this seems like a simple business transaction—a moment of decision. But what if we traced backward through time to understand what really happened? What forces were acting seconds before they said yes? Minutes before? Hours, days, years before they walked through your door?

This is a detective story about a business model. And like all good mysteries, the answer to "who done it" depends entirely on understanding "when."

Years Before: The Architecture of Expectation

When did the "try before you buy" model become standard in dog training?

Years before your client contacts you, the architecture is already being built. The broader culture of dog training has been shaped by retail thinking, not clinical thinking. Somewhere in the history of this profession, we imported business models from industries where trying before buying makes perfect sense—buying a car, sampling food, testing software.

But we're not selling products. We're facilitating behavior change in complex family systems.

Decades of research on family systems (Minuchin, 1974; Bowen, 1978) established that serious behavioral issues in any family member—human or canine—reflect systemic patterns, not isolated problems. These patterns develop over years, become embedded in relationship dynamics, and require committed systemic intervention to change.

Yet our business structures were built for a different kind of work entirely. Why?

The mindset is set before the first contact.

Carol Dweck's (2006) research on fixed versus growth mindsets reveals something crucial: how people approach challenges is shaped long before they face them. A fixed mindset asks, "Will this work for me?" A growth mindset asks, "What will I need to develop to succeed?"

By the time a client reaches out, they've already absorbed cultural messages about change:

• "Find the right fit"

• "Shop around"

• "See what feels right"

• "Try it out first"

These phrases make sense for consumer products. They're actively harmful for behavior change requiring sustained commitment and discomfort tolerance.

Well, if you want to understand that, we have to go back a bit earlier …

The professional training created the conflict.

Years before you offer that initial consultation, you were likely trained in a system that taught you to "attract clients" and "close sales." Perhaps you learned that people need to "feel comfortable" before committing. Maybe you were taught that refundable packages and trial sessions are "client-centered."

But were you taught Prochaska and DiClemente's (1983) Stages of Change? Bandura's (1986) work on self-efficacy development? Deci and Ryan's (2000) Self-Determination Theory?

If not, the disconnect was built into your training long before you ever met a client.

Let’s zoom into the family who has a dog and wants help.

Months Before: The Family System in Crisis

When did this family's system begin to destabilize?

Months before the client contacts you, their household has been reorganizing around the dog's behavior. This doesn't happen overnight.

So, let's put on our detective hats and rewind the tape. Perhaps the first reactive episode happened six months ago. At first, they managed it as an isolated incident. Then it happened again. And again. Slowly, the entire family system began to adapt:

• Walking routes changed

• Visiting patterns shifted

• One partner took primary responsibility while the other withdrew

• Stress leaked into other areas of their relationship

• Perhaps their social life contracted

• Maybe they started avoiding certain conversations about "what to do about the dog"

Kerr and Bowen (1988) describe how family systems absorb and distribute stress through predictable patterns. By the time a family reaches crisis point, these patterns are deeply embedded. The behavior is no longer the problem—it's the visible symptom of a system that's reorganized around managing chronic stress.

The family has already been "trying things."

Months before contacting you, they've likely already tried:

• Advice from friends

• YouTube videos

• A few tips from their vet

• Maybe even a group class that didn't work

Steel's (2010) research on procrastination reveals that "gathering more information" and "trying different approaches" are sophisticated forms of avoidance. By the time they contact you, they've already established a pattern: try something, hope it works without major commitment, move on when it doesn't.

So what creates a turning point?

Not the "try before you buy" model. In fact, it may inadvertently reinforce exactly the pattern that's been keeping them stuck.

Let zoom forward to the week before …

The Week Before: Search and the Story They Tell Themselves

So what finally prompts the call?

Weeks before the consultation, something shifted. Perhaps there was an incident that scared them. Maybe a near-miss. Or perhaps they just realized the daily stress was unsustainable.

But here's what's happening psychologically in those weeks:

They're constructing a narrative about what they're looking for.

Kahneman's (2011) work on decision-making distinguishes between "fast thinking" (automatic, emotional) and "slow thinking" (deliberate, analytical). When stressed, people default to fast thinking. They're not asking, "What does this case require?" They're asking, "What feels manageable?"

In those weeks, they're likely telling themselves and one another:

• "I just need to find the right approach"

• "If this trainer's methods feel right, I'll commit"

• "I need to see if we're a good fit first"

• “Maybe they can finally validate that its (family members) fault”

These narratives feel reasonable, right?

They're also precisely the wrong questions for someone who needs systemic intervention.

They're experiencing cognitive dissonance.

The theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger's, 1957) could be explained like adjusting the mirror to make the reflection look right, instead of admitting the car’s parked at an angle. It is when reality conflicts with our beliefs, and we unconsciously adjust our thinking to reduce discomfort.

They might believe: "I'm a good dog owner" AND face reality that their dog has serious behavioral problems. This creates discomfort. One way to resolve it: "I just need to find the right method and this will be fixable."

The trial consultation model accommodates this dissonance rather than productively disrupting it. A trial in this moment is like tilting your head instead of fixing the crooked painting — feels better for a moment, but the wall hasn’t moved.

Let’s zoom in closer and magnify the day before …

Days Before: The Consultation Approaches

When do they start evaluating whether to commit?

Days before meeting you, they're already in evaluation mode. But what are they actually evaluating?

Ariely's (2008) research on predictably irrational decision-making shows that people in stressful situations rely on feelings and heuristics rather than rational analysis. And isn’t this the fundamental human comedy? That the same neural shortcuts that helped us avoid predators on the savanna now have us making billion-dollar decisions based on word-play and perceived slights. But I digress. 

The becoming client can't assess whether your approach addresses the systemic issues in their household—they don't have the training to make that judgment.

Instead, they're assessing:

• Do they like you?

• Does your approach sound reasonable?

• Does it feel manageable?

• Does the price feel acceptable?

None of these evaluations predict success for complex behavioral cases.

Their nervous system is already dysregulated.

Remember: they're in crisis. Their stress response system has been activated for months. They're walking into this consultation in a state of chronic activation, which fundamentally affects how they process information and make decisions.

When we ask them to "evaluate" our approach in this state, we're asking a dysregulated nervous system to make a major decision about committing to difficult change work.

It’s a bit like asking someone to choose a new sofa while their house is on fire.

Hours Before: Preparing for the Performance

When do you start thinking about the consultation? Hours before, the nervous system is already at work, quietly converting anticipation into cortisol. You’re not reviewing a case; you’re rehearsing a scene. I used to ring people back after listening to their voicemails, armed with a notebook of clever questions — the behavioural equivalent of puffing up feathers before a display. Questions signal competence. They keep you safe. They also make it easier to pretend you’re listening while scanning for the perfect moment to sell yourself.

If your business model depends on the client saying “yes,” then what you’re preparing isn’t an assessment — it’s a performance with a preferred ending. And as Cialdini (2006) pointed out, once a goal sneaks into the brain, objectivity quietly leaves the room. We call it professionalism. It’s persuasion in a lab coat.

You face an impossible conflict:

Should you:

• Share the honest assessment that this will be challenging, lengthy, and require significant household changes? (May reduce package sales)

• Create a hopeful, positive experience that demonstrates your competence? (May lead to commitment but misalign expectations)

This conflict was built into the business model. It activates hours before you meet.

You're also affected by Miller and Rollnick's warning.

When your business model requires persuasion—even gentle persuasion—you've already moved away from the collaborative, client-centered exploration that actually supports behavior change, (Miller and Rollnick, 2012). There’s the rub. The system forces a performance, positioning you in the wrong role hours before the meeting

Hours before the meeting, the structure has already positioned you in the wrong role.

Minutes Before: The Moment of Contact

When does the actual interaction begin?

Minutes before the substantive conversation starts—while they're filling out paperwork, while you're making small talk—important dynamics are already forming.

The attachment system is activating.

Our fundamental need to form connections when we meet someone new, especially when we can help, is a high we all have experienced (Baumeister and Leary, 1995).

But here's the problem: they know this is a trial. You know this is a trial. The relationship is provisional before it even begins.

Research on trust and therapeutic alliance consistently shows that committed relationships support change in ways that provisional relationships cannot.

Depth requires safety.

Safety requires commitment.

But the model has already predetermined that commitment is conditional. Like standing in the Elvis Chapel, and your intended answers, ‘maybe?’

Self-Determination Theory is already being violated.

Deci and Ryan (2000) identify three fundamental psychological needs for motivation and change:

1. Autonomy - But are they autonomous if they're in crisis and being asked to evaluate something they lack expertise to assess?

2. Competence - But does being asked to judge an approach they don't understand undermine or support their sense of competence?

3. Relatedness - But can genuine relational connection form when both parties know the relationship is conditional on the client's evaluation?

All three needs are being compromised before the substantive work even begins.

Seconds Before: The Decision Point

So, let's place a nanny-cam on the moment itself. When do they really decide whether to commit?"

Seconds before they say "yes" or "I need to think about it," what's actually happening?

Fast thinking is winning.

Kahneman (2011) would tell us that in moments of decision—especially under stress, time pressure, or uncertainty—fast thinking dominates. They're not conducting careful analysis. They're having a feeling and then rationalizing it.

I remember naively ordering a plate called the ‘Vindaloo’ at the Spice and Sizzle Indian Restaurant. Everyone had ordered and the waiter was awaiting, my singularly english-palate to order ‘something, anything’. Well, there was not enough water, bread, or taziki to make that not hurt.

Like the naivety of a no-spice digestive system ordering Vindaloo, say the consultation "felt good," if they liked you, if it seemed manageable—they're likely to say yes.

Now if the waiter were to have been asked for his thoughts on the dish. The one best fit for my delicate buds … my discernment over-ridden by feelings of uncertainty, overwhelm and finding a not devastatingly spicy, I would have hesitated. For a dog caregiver, the same is true during a fast-thinking decision moment.

And, neither of these responses are based on a genuine assessment of what their case requires. And no one wants the heart-burn of not making a good decision.

Let’s pull out fMRI on our phones (perhaps I just leaked a new innovation) and check out what’s really happening on a neurobiological level …

When fast-thinking is happening it’s like a squeal of brakes and acceleration of hitting the gas.  The brain balancing a chorus of “Go!” and a choir of “Wait!’. This high-wire act of decision-making, what neuroscientists like Shadlen see as the brain's core challenge of balancing ongoing demands, isn't new. (Shadlen, Roskies, 2012).  Imagine the early-days of human survival for a moment, when a ripe piece of fruit hanging from a branch was also about to be snatched by an equally starving monkey. The signal screams down the myelinated superhighways. The body responds before the conscious mind can catch up—pupils dilate, breath quickens. And deep in the command center, the whole gang in the frontal cortex lights up, trying to make sense of the chaos (Shadlen, Roskies, 2012). All this computational energy just to stop a monkey. This is the problem: that same ancient, lifesaving circuitry, when triggered by a stressful consultation, bypasses the slow, deliberate 'stages of change' entirely. The client isn't making a choice; they're having a reaction.

They're fighting a monkey for fruit, not planning for a future harvest.

Prochaska and DiClemente (1983) established that sustainable behavior change moves through distinct stages: precontemplation → contemplation → preparation → action → maintenance.

The trial model keeps people oscillating between contemplation and preparation: "Is this right for me? Am I ready? Does this feel like the right fit?"

But seconds before they commit, they should be moving from preparation into action: "I understand what this requires, and I'm committing to the process."

The business model prevents this transition.

Self-efficacy is either building or eroding.

To make behaviours change in a dog, the human must believe they have the capacity to do the work. That is developed through specific experiences, including a pattern of mastering other capabilities. That is the power of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986), the belief in one's capacity to execute behaviors necessary for change.

But seconds before commitment, what experience are they having?

If you've spent the session helping them understand their capacity to change while being honest about the challenge ahead, you've supported self-efficacy.

If you've spent the session trying to make them feel comfortable and positive so they'll commit to a package, you may have temporarily boosted their mood while undermining their genuine confidence in their capacity for difficult work. If you've ever received an apology without atonement, you understand the hollow feeling of a promise that hasn't been earned.

But this conflict isn't just affecting the professional in the hours before. Its consequences ripple forward, defining what happens after the 'yes'.

The Moment After: What Happens When They Say Yes

When the decision is made, what has actually been decided?

We’ve experienced the mythical nodding of heads is a signal of agreement to an idea, not an agreement to action. A gym membership says, "I want to be fit." The sweat says "I'm willing to earn it.”

Here, the full cost of the trial model becomes clear: They've committed to a package, not to the process. They said yes to a number of sessions at a price point that felt manageable.

Let’s discover the full cost of the trial model, and what saying yes really means:

They've committed to a package, not to the process.

They said yes to a number of sessions at a price point that felt manageable. They have not yet genuinely committed to:

• Tolerating discomfort

• Changing household patterns

• Staying engaged when progress is slow

• Doing difficult work between sessions

• Seeing this through regardless of how long it takes

Research on behavior change consistently shows that commitment to process predicts success far better than commitment to a specific intervention package.

But the business model secured commitment to the wrong thing.

The evaluation mindset persists.

Because they "tried before they bought," they're still in evaluation mode. After each session, the unconscious question is: "Is this working? Should I continue?"

This is the opposite of the committed engagement that Bandura (1991), Prochaska and DiClemente (1983), and virtually every behavior change researcher identifies as essential for success.

The package they chose may be inadequate.

Because they evaluated based on feeling rather than professional assessment, and because they were in crisis making decisions with dysregulated nervous systems (vindaloo), and because they chose based on what felt manageable rather than what the case requires—the package they committed to is likely insufficient.

Now you face a new problem: Do you tell them early that they need more than they purchased? (Risks triggering buyer's remorse and dropout) Or do you wait until the package is ending? (Allows insufficient intervention and may lead to failure)

The business model created this dilemma. It never asks, “Are they willing to earn it?”

Let’s travel further into the looking glass …

Months After: The Consequence Cascade

When does the outcome become clear?

Months after that initial "yes," several predictable patterns emerge:

Pattern 1: The Insufficient Package

• Family chose 6 sessions; case needs 20+

• Behavior improved slightly, then plateaued

• Family feels disappointed, trainer feels constrained

• Often ends with: "We tried that, it didn't work"

Pattern 2: The Upsell Struggle

• Trainer explains more work is needed

• Client experiences cognitive dissonance: "But you said..."

• Trust erodes even when trainer was honest

• Additional packages purchased reluctantly, without full commitment

Pattern 3: The Dropout

• Work gets challenging

• Family still in evaluation mindset: "Is this the right approach?"

• When discomfort arrives, commitment wavers

• End before real change occurs

Pattern 4: The Exception

• Some families succeed despite the structure

• Usually because they somehow moved from consumer to participant

• Their success happens despite the business model, not because of it

The systems remain unchanged.

Remember: months before the consultation, the family system had reorganized around the dog's behavior. The dog's behavior is the symptom. The system is the problem. Yet, in their state of thinking, it’s not them, it’s the dog, or worse, you, is the traffic-jam of package models. Have you ever sat frustrated on the highway, and found yourself thinking, "All these other cars are causing the traffic jam." Yet, from inside the car, it's easy to believe the traffic jam is caused by everyone else—the dog, the trainer, the other drivers. The painful, systemic truth is simpler: You are not stuck in traffic. You ARE the traffic.

Senge (2006) emphasizes that systems thinking requires understanding interconnections, feedback loops, and patterns—not just isolated events. Trial sessions demonstrate isolated techniques. They rarely allow for the deep systemic assessment and intervention that Minuchin (1974), Bowen (1978), and family systems research consistently show is necessary for lasting change.

Months after that initial consultation, the family system may have some new coping strategies, but the fundamental patterns often remain intact.

Engaging the time portal …

Years After: The Industry Pattern

When we zoom out to the profession as a whole, what patterns are revealed?

Years after hundreds of these consultations, across many professionals, an industry-wide pattern becomes visible:

• Success rates plateau

• Client satisfaction is mixed

• Professional burnout increases

• Families often try multiple trainers before finding lasting help

• The profession struggles with credibility

• AI is on the horizon to fill the gaps

This isn't because individual professionals lack skill. It's because the business structure systematically undermines the conditions necessary for success.

We've imported the wrong model.

Senge (2006) describes how organizations often adopt practices from other contexts without examining whether those practices serve their actual work. We've imported consumer retail thinking into clinical intervention work.

The trial model works beautifully for products and for straightforward skill-building services. It systematically undermines complex behavior change requiring sustained commitment through discomfort.

The profession needs a structural evolution.

Decades of psychological research—from Bandura to Prochaska to Deci & Ryan to Miller & Rollnick—all point in the same direction: sustainable behavior change requires specific conditions that the trial model actively prevents.

We need business structures that:

• Lead with comprehensive assessment, not trial sessions

• Invite full commitment to process, not tentative exploration

• Support intrinsic motivation rather than creating sales pressure

• Honor the systemic nature of complex behavioral cases

• Build self-efficacy through honest communication about challenge

• Create committed relationships rather than provisional evaluations

What Happens Before We Change: A Final Cascade

If you want to understand why the trial model persists, you have to understand, “Clients are not static. They are becoming.”

We must zoom into the past:

Years before: We were trained in business models from other industries

Months before: We absorbed messages about being "client-centered" that conflated accommodation with support

Weeks before: We built marketing based on reducing client anxiety rather than preparing them for growth

Days before: We structured our pricing around packages people would buy rather than what cases require

Hours before: We prepared to "close the sale" rather than to evoke intrinsic motivation

Minutes before: We created provisional relationships rather than committed partnerships

Seconds before: We asked clients in crisis to evaluate what they lack expertise to assess

And now: We face disappointing outcomes that were predicted by decades of psychological research

But we can change the cascade.

Let’s zoom into the future, today.

What happens a second before matters. But what happened years before matters more.

When we restructure our professional practices to align with the science of behavior change, we change everything that follows:

Years before: Train in behavior change theory, not sales techniques

Months before: Build professional identity around systems intervention, not package sales

Weeks before: Market comprehensive assessment, not trial sessions

Days before: Structure pricing around case needs, not client comfort

Hours before: Prepare for collaborative goal-setting, not persuasion

Minutes before: Create committed partnerships from first contact

Seconds before: Invite full commitment to process

And then: Success rates align with our skills and dedication

The Detective Story Solved

We started with a question: Why does a client say yes?

The answer isn't about that moment. It's about everything that happened before—years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds before, and everything that happens after.

The trial model seems client-centered. But when we trace the chronological cascade, we discover it systematically undermines every condition that psychological research identifies as necessary for successful behavior change.

It compromises:

• Their progression through stages of change (Prochaska & DiClemente)

• Their development of self-efficacy (Bandura)

• Their intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan)

• The quality of therapeutic alliance (Baumeister & Leary)

• Their ability to make decisions from calm rather than crisis (Kahneman)

• The systemic intervention their case requires (Minuchin, Bowen, Senge)

• The collaborative exploration that supports change (Miller & Rollnick)

This isn't a critique of individual professionals. It's a structural analysis revealing that we've built our business practices on a foundation that conflicts with the science of how behavior change actually occurs.

The solution isn't complicated. It's chronological and futuristic.

If we want different outcomes, we need to change what happens before. Not just seconds before, but years before. And, we need to see a future where we are successful and abundant.

We need to build professional practices on the architecture of behavior change science rather than consumer retail models.

The chronological cascade works both ways: what we do now shapes everything that comes after.

References

Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. HarperCollins.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.

Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Revised ed.). Harper Business.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory. W. W. Norton & Company.

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390-395.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Revised ed.). Doubleday/Currency.

Shadlen MN, Roskies AL. (2012) The neurobiology of decision-making and responsibility: reconciling mechanism and mindedness. Front Neurosci. Apr 23;6:56. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2012.00056. PMID: 22536171; PMCID: PMC3332233.

Steel, P. (2010). The procrastination equation: How to stop putting things off and start getting stuff done. Random House.

Vartanian O, Lam TK, Maceda E, De Neys W. (2021) Can a fast thinker be a good thinker? The neural correlates of base-rate neglect measured using a two-response paradigm. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2021 Jul-Sep;38(6):365-386. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2022.2041589. PMID: 35274593

This article examines the structure of dog behaviour professional practice through the lens of chronological causation. It's offered as an invitation to examine how what happens years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds before a client says "yes" shapes everything that comes after—and to consider whether our business structures serve the transformational work our most complex cases require.

" Clients are not static. They are becoming”