CHAPTER 15
Neuroscience Platform—NeuroLeadership
You and your fellow students volunteered for this experiment, but you had not met before. All the volunteers watched this video, and it was really gross—car accidents and maimed bodies. Then you went into a small conference room and you thought you were supposed to talk about the impact of the video. But your partner acted like it had not had any affect at all. He kept trying to make small talk, and he seemed to have no reaction when you said you had felt like throwing up. His behavior added to your discomfort about the video. When the experimenters measured your blood pressure, it was way higher than normal.
In experiments such as this by James Gross and others (2006), the negative effects of trying to suppress emotions applied not only to the suppressors, the subjects who had been instructed to try to hide their reactions, but also to their partners who had no idea about the instructions. This is just one of many research studies showing that our emotions have an effect on others in our environment—even without their being aware of it. The human brain is superbly designed to share information and energy with others. In an organization, negative emotions can be poisonous; leaders depend on positive ones to facilitate collaboration.
Once we address the topic of management and leadership in organizations, we are engaged in conversations about relationships. A conversation involves sharing energy and information. Certain types of conversations require a mutual resonance of the mechanism that provides for the flow of energy and information (our brains) and the process that regulates that flow (our minds). Over time, such conversations result in attuned relationships that further stimulate brain integration and the capacity of the mind to reflect on itself. Daniel Siegel (2007b) has concluded that health and wellness involve the three irreducible elements of an integrated brain, a reflective mind, and attuned relationships. We have suggested that a human being who is continually potentiating is characterized by these three elements. We are a physical species, a conscious and self-conscious species, and a social species.
We have looked at the ways the brain is hardwired to prepare us for challenges to our survival, and we have noted that human beings cannot survive without relating to other people. As Leslie Brothers (2001) has pointed out, “The human individual doesn’t really exist as a person until he or she takes up and participates in forms of social life” (p. 90). Ignoring this fact leads to what she calls “neuroism,” a trend that, at its worst, takes the cultural and psychological assumption of individualism as an article of faith and identifies a single human mind with a single human brain, thus ignoring the social connections necessary for both to exist. We have pointed out the extent to which this assumption is reflected in bedrock psychology, even social psychology. Brothers claims that the ability of neuroscience to develop a truly scientific theory is limited by its adoption of such psychological language and underlying concepts of the supreme individual.
The trend in organizations from management to leadership, combined with Brothers’s warnings about neuroism, is a call to move beyond the mechanistic paradigm that gave rise to psychological individualism. There is much work for neuroscientists to do in overcoming that cultural background. We hope to support our neuroscience colleagues in responding to Brothers’s call by recognizing the irreducible importance of social relationships to brain and mind functioning.
• Why are relationships so important to us?
• What constitutes a good relationship?
• How do relationships relate to our survival, development, and well-being?
• Why are we so sensitive to put-downs?
• How is it possible for us to mirror in our own minds what we see others experiencing?
• What are the benefits of developing a theory of mind, a sense that others have desires, intentions, and feelings that are as real to them as ours are to us?
• How can coaching enhance our relationships?
• Does our social environment determine who we are and what we do?
• If we construct our reality socially, then how can we construct it better?
We accept that, in every way that matters, our brain functions and mental processes cannot be teased apart from the social fabric in which we live. We have discussed the necessity of an attachment relationship for the human infant, and we have indicated that relationships such as coaching can have positive effects on adult mind and brain functions and even brain structure. We now examine in more detail our social relating processes under these headings:
• Collaborative, contingent conversations
• Our social brains
• Theory of mind
• Repairing relationships—Sange
• Resolving conflict—Stop and Grow
• Calming threats—SCARF
• Practice guide for coaching with the brain in mind: Get along with others
COLLABORATIVE, CONTINGENT CONVERSATIONS
An important input for the process of relating to others is a particular type of conversation that Daniel Siegel (1999) has called “collaborative, contingent conversations.” They are, first of all, collaborative in that both parties make contributions to the ongoing interaction. There is no one with a gavel to call on the next person to speak. Second, there is no agenda or script that must be followed. What each person says is dependent on and responsive to what the other person just said, and vice versa.
Even when a topic or subject matter is at the center of the conversation, it appears to be by moment-to-moment agreement. Either participant may change the subject.
We should mention here that, while “conversation” is often taken to mean just verbal interaction, and often just its semantic content, we mean to include every channel of communication (Page-Hollander, 1973): linguistic, paralinguistic (verbalizations and vocal qualities that are part of speech but not part of language per se—like “uh” and “yeah”), visual, kinesthetic, and even smell and perhaps taste. We mean collaborative and contingent in every way, recognizing that our minds and bodies are in constant nonverbal conversations, stimulating many associations of which we are unaware.
A parent exchanging gestures with a preverbal infant provides a template for these conversations. Infant and parent are present in the moment, gazing at each other, their attention taken up fully by the other. The infant coos a sound, and the parent coos back. The infant smiles at the parent’s response and the parent smiles in return. The infant coos again. If the parent responds too loudly, the infant looks startled. The parent becomes quieter and calmer. The infant calms also and coos a slightly different sound. The parent responds with a similar sound and adds something new. And on and on.
To nonparenting adults, this may seem like a meaningless game. However, in the absence of “conversations” like this, including similar physical give and receive that evolve into sharing experiences and stories as the child’s language ability develops, children fail to thrive. Development of neural connections in the prefrontal cortex, the part of our brains that enables us to control emotions and relate to other people, depends on our experiencing contingent, collaborative conversations and the ongoing relationships in which such conversations occur.
Conversations like this play a unique part in the development of our brains, our minds, and our relationships, for three reasons:
1. They are literally associated with the growth of the infant brain, especially the prefrontal cortex that we have already suggested plays such an important role in the integration of social and mental functions across time and areas of the brain. More recent research shows that the prefrontal cortex in adults is similarly nurtured by the collaborative, contingent conversations we have. Such conversations seem to play a part in the “earning” of secure attachment by adults who missed out on it as children. In short, collaborative, contingent conversations grow our brains. The similarity of such conversations to the ideal of a coaching interaction is obvious to anyone who has experienced coaching.
2. These conversations are examples of and enable attuned relating processes that, we are suggesting are irreducible requirements for mental health. As educator Sandra Johnson (2006) puts it, “literally looking into the eyes of the affectively attuned other is another significant form of social interaction that can assist in promoting development” (p. 67).
3. Because of their stimulation of the prefrontal cortex, collaborative, contingent conversations strengthen mental capacities that are mediated by that part of the brain. The capacities that are particularly relevant to social sharing are attuned communication, empathy, and intuition, including the ability to know that others have thoughts and desires as we do. In looking at this list, we are reminded of Alfred Adler’s attempts to define mental health, rather than mental illness, as “social interest” or going beyond empathy to “having an interest in the interest of others.”
Linking Collaborative, Contingent Conversations to Coaching
Are coaching conversations collaborative and contingent? A survey of competencies promoted by coaching associations such as the International Coach Federation and the European Coaching and Mentoring Association would suggest that they are meant to be. Coaches are trained to be “present” in coaching sessions, putting their full attention on the client and the interaction. They are not to operate themselves as expert advice-givers or as judgmental authorities. Coaches are taught to elicit the client’s agenda rather than imposing one of their own. Certainly the ideal for coaching conversations is very similar to collaborative, contingent conversations.
As far as we know, no research exists that compares the qualities of actual collaborative, contingent parenting conversations with actual coaching conversations. Nor is there proof that, even if they are similar, the same benefits would accrue for the coaching client’s brain and mental processes. We do know that other adult interactions can have positive effects, such as those between a therapist and client (Norcross, 2002) or between spouses, one with a secure attachment history and the other without. Therefore, it is a good guess that coaching interactions likewise have a beneficial effect on the brain.
In fact, it may be that collaboration and contingency are part of what account for the positive outcome of coaching. Psychotherapy research has shown that relationship factors account for about 30% of the variance in positive outcome for clients. This is a strong argument for being present, for engaging in collaborative interaction, and for avoiding judgment or control that may trigger a status threat for clients.
OUR SOCIAL BRAINS
In Friday’s Footprint, UCLA psychiatrist Leslie Brothers (Brothers, 1997) illustrates her claim that the human brain is built for social interaction. Brothers views the amygdala as the social, not the emotional, center, with social issues such as status and belonging being the ones we feel strongest about.
A new scientific field has emerged that is dedicated to these ideas, called social cognitive neuroscience (SCN). The field is new, with its first two academic journals launched in March (Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience) and June (Social Neuroscience) of 2006. American Psychologist announced the arrival of the new field in an article written by Ochsner and Lieberman and published in 2001. Most neuroscience up to the turn of the 21st century exhibited the individualistic orientation of the mechanistic paradigm, focusing on the functioning of a solo brain. SCN subscribes to the contextual orientation of the systemic paradigm by studying the interrelatedness of brains and minds in the social field.
Social neuroscience also considers the human experience at multiple levels, from the molecular to the functional, to the psychological, to the observable, to the social world and wider society. SCN brings together social and cognitive psychology with brain science methodology in the hope of deciphering the neural processes underlying complex behaviors that have puzzled human sciences for years—topics such as stereotyping, influence, attitudes, and self-control—and how these in turn influence brain function and structure. Many of these topics were studied in the past by different fields in parallel, without using language that indicated how similar the underlying phenomena may be. SCN shares with interpersonal neurobiology (Siegel, 1999, 2007a, b) the goal of sharing results and developing a common language so researchers from different fields can talk with one another (Lieberman, 2007).
According to Matt Lieberman, one of the key contributors to SCN, for three-quarters of the time that we are not concentrating on work or something outside ourselves, we are thinking about our social relationships. Our brain has been formed over time by its environment, and our environment is predominantly a social one. So the environment that we live in is more social than physical.
Given that much of coaching focuses on improving a person’s ability to interact with and influence others, it makes sense that coaching could benefit from the findings of SCN.
One such finding is that emotions are contagious. The strongest emotion in a team can ripple out and elicit the same emotion in others, without anyone consciously knowing this is happening. Thus, our state of mind can be influenced by interaction with others. In an organizational context, the leader’s frame of mind can have a powerful effect on others. Coaching can assist leaders to be aware of this and thus enable leaders to make choices about the mood they want to invite within the organization. Future research can be expected to help us understand how some people’s emotions are more contagious than others’.
The rich history of attachment research combined with neuroscience and other fields such as anthropology, psychiatry, and linguistics, yields the recommendation that we relate to people from whom we “catch” emotions that are beneficial to us. We consider these attuned relationships to be one of the three irreducible elements of health and well-being. The others are an integrated brain and self-reflective mind.
Attuned relationships occur when two people engage in what we have described as collaborative, contingent conversations. Adult educators concur, drawing on SCN for evidence that “the brain actually needs to seek out an affectively attuned other if it is to learn. Affective attunement alleviates fear, which has been recognized by many in the field of adult learning and development as an impediment to learning” (Johnson, 2006, p. 66).
The feeling we get when we connect intensely with another human being in this way is the opposite of the stress response that happens when we feel threatened. When we interconnect our emotions, goals, and thoughts with those of others, we bring about a release of oxytocin, a highly pleasurable chemical. This occurs when two people are dancing together, playing music together, or having mutually gratifying sex as well as having quality conversations. It seems the brain is built to reward quality connections and interconnectivity.
Another way of asserting the importance of connectivity is to say that there is no such thing as an individual brain divorced from connections with others. We have discussed the prescient notions of Alfred Adler, who refused to work with clients as if they were isolated human beings. The dehumanizing effects of total isolation are only partially countered by our amazing ability to carry our relationships with us, in our imagination, and to carry on conversations in our minds “as if” another person is present.
The connection between a coach and a client is often termed “rapport.” We become aware of rapport most often when it is absent. The field of psychotherapy went through a phase of blaming the client for any lack of rapport, labeling such clients “resistant.” Coaches can fall into this trap by not realizing that rapport is a function of the relationship between coach and client, not a characteristic of one or the other individual.
It is true that sometimes a client may not want to be involved in coaching, or the coach may not want to work with this particular client or in this particular context. This does not have to destroy rapport, as long as the two collaborate in recognizing what is actually going on in the present rather than what someone or something says should be going on. The two can then collaborate in deciding what to do about the situation, perhaps by ending or delaying coaching.
Often we are not aware of what it is that has disturbed rapport. We may feel uncomfortable or irritated or anxious with a client. This may be the result of a mismatch of unconscious behavior and expectations, often resulting from culturally influenced implicit mental models. We are not used to people sitting so close or so far; speaking so loud or so soft; or gazing at us so intently or not looking at us when we speak to them. Communication between people of different cultures and subcultures can trigger discomfort that makes connection difficult. Exploring these areas with clients can not only establish the rapport that makes coaching effective, it may also model ways for them to consciously create more fulfilling relationships at work or in their personal lives.
We have indicated that our beliefs, values, and culture create the filters through which we see the world. Social neuroscience shows that how we understand, empathize, and socialize with others is also filtered by our mental processes. Clients’ mental models will guide how they navigate their social landscape, whether in an organizational or a personal context. Therefore, it is useful for both coaches and clients to become mindful not only of our own beliefs and values but also how we interpret the beliefs and values of others in our environment—including one another in a coaching relationship. The ability to do this overlaps with Daniel Goleman’s concept of social intelligence (2006) and is part of the output of relating that we identify as intuition.
Linking Social Brain Concepts to Coaching
There is a claim in some coaching circles that all clients have all the solutions they need and the coach is simply there to help uncover those resources. But how could that be? For an individual to have every solution would mean that each of us must have experienced every possible contingency. Sometimes we face entirely new situations that we have not developed the mental “muscles” to deal with. As anthropologist Robert Redfield (1953) showed, even prehistoric societies faced changes beyond their imagining. How much more is that true today, with the rate of change increasing exponentially?
No human being can have had all possible experiences, no matter how much change or how many moves. But having social brains enables us to draw on the experiences of others. We mentioned social psychologist Lev Vygotsky in chapter 7 in the section on developmental psychology. He believed that the most important measure of intelligence was not what people can do on their own, but what they can do with just a little help from their friends. He called this the “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978). For example, when a child is frightened at first hearing a dog’s bark, she can “borrow” her father’s calm attitude and over time learn to calm herself.
In coaching, we connect with clients in order to help them expand their “zone of proximal development.” When we enter collaborative, contingent conversations, we are opening our experiences to our clients so they may draw on those resources. It is the coach’s responsibility to recognize less-than-optimal resourcefulness, not to correct it but to invite the client to ask whether more is possible. An invitation like this may be all it takes for the client to shift into a more resourceful state. But in some cases, clients may need to “borrow” from the coach’s experience as scaffolding in order to build their own (Johnson, 2006).
Example: A Performance Review that Encouraged Development
Colleen was pleased with her promotion to head the service department at an electronics chain. The fact that she was provided with a coach meant that the company thought of her as “high potential.” However, when it came to conducting performance reviews with her staff, all she could think of was her own devastating experience with her overly critical former boss. She did not want anyone else to go through that, but she had never experienced a performance review that encouraged development. Her coach suggested they role-play a review using a coaching mind-set.
The crucial element in role-playing is that the learner takes on all the relevant roles, so Colleen started by describing the employee whom the coach would play. The coach played that role, and Colleen delivered a review to her coach as employee.
The two talked about how they each experienced the interaction and then switched roles.
The coach used the information that Colleen had provided when she role-played speaking to her employee. But now, in role-playing Colleen, the coach focused on how the same facts could be delivered in a way that encouraged and advanced the employee’s goals. After this run-through, Colleen tried again, but this time she used as much of the coach’s approach as she felt comfortable with.
This practice session helped Colleen conduct reviews with her coach’s demeanor and words consciously in mind. It was not long before it became automatic for her to access an encouraging approach in conducting performance reviews.
There is a link here to neuroplasticity, or the brain’s ability to grow. In simple terms, the coaching process stimulates new connections and likely even the production of new neurons. Having more neurons to use and flexing this mental muscle more regularly means that change becomes easier for clients. This is what we mean by “self-directed neuroplasticity.”
THEORY OF MIND
Philosophers, especially since the time of Descartes, and 20th-century scientists, especially more recent cognitive psychologists, have puzzled over the human capacity for developing a “theory of mind”—that is, the ability to grasp that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from our own. It is often implied or assumed (but not stated explicitly) that this does not merely signify conceptual understanding that “other people have minds and think” but also the recognition that these thoughts and states and emotions are real and genuine for these people, just as ours are for ourselves.
This concept is not just about a cognitive theory, for it is closely related to empathy. “Empathy” means experientially recognizing and understanding the states of mind, including beliefs, desires, and particularly emotions of others without injecting our own. This is commonly characterized as the ability to put oneself into another’s shoes. In describing empathy, Alfred Adler used the phrase “See with the eyes of another, hear with the ears of another, feel with the heart of another.” But how people might do that was a matter of speculation: Was it taught by experience or learned by modeling, or did we just appear to empathize when actually we are pursuing our selfish ends?
The discovery of mirror neurons (Gallese, Fadiga, Fogassi, & Rizzolatti, 1996; Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Gallese, & Fogassi, 1996) as discussed in chapter 3, opened up an entirely new possibility. Might the firing of neurons when observing the intentional actions of others account for our capacity for empathy and our ability to develop a theory of mind? It does appear that we grasp the experience of others through direct experience of ourselves, through sensing, not thinking. When someone is feeling sad, we know so partly because we also feel sad.
It makes sense, then, that we develop a theory of mind because we understand another’s mind almost as if we were in it—or as if they were in ours. We have already noted how very different each person’s brain is. If that is the case, then we need some special advantage to be able to navigate the social world intelligently and overcome the vast differences between us. If we are to anticipate what others will do, which we have defined as the hallmark of intelligence, we literally need to know how, despite all its differences, that other mind thinks.
Thus, theory of mind generally covers two separate concepts:
1. Understanding that others also have minds, with different and separate beliefs, desires, mental states, and intentions
2. Being able to form operational hypotheses (theories), or mental models, with some degree of accuracy, as to what those beliefs, desires, mental states, and intentions are
A theory of mind appears to be an innate potential ability in most humans (and, some argue, in certain other species), but it requires social and other experience over many years to bring to adult fruition. It is probably a continuum, in the sense that different people may develop more or less effective theories of mind, varying from very complete and accurate ones through to minimally functional.
Studies of young children show that they develop a theory of mind between the ages of four and six years. Before they have this, children have difficulty playing hide and seek effectively: They do not realize that others cannot see them when their own eyes are closed but they are in full view.
Many of Shakespeare’s plays involve characters misunderstanding others’ intentions. In King Lear, for example, we need to hold in our own mind as the audience the various intentions of the players. The tragedy that unfolds emanates from the misreading of these intentions. In everyday life, big brains are needed to find our way through a complex social world. Even in a current “romantic comedy” series on television, dramatic tension typically arises when characters mistake the intentions of others or fail to communicate what others need to know in order to understand their intentions.
With each person we meet, we wonder: friend or foe, threat or resource, trustworthy or not? It is efficient and perhaps even safer to have a way of anticipating or predicting these qualities before the consequences are played out. It is believed that much of the high-level capacity of our brains, such as working memory, evolved to manage social complexities such as these.
In the animal kingdom, it has been found that the bigger the brain, the bigger the social group. Based on brain size, humans might be better off in groups of about 150, which is the size of a typical English village or a hunter-gatherer group; it is how we lived throughout most of human history. It is also the size of many departments in corporations.
The brain has strong memory circuits for relationships between people. We remember people more easily than things and things more easily than concepts. Think of the number of people you could summon to mind in an hour and how well you could describe your relationship to each of them. Our memories of our interconnections are vast. For example, memory experts remember several decks of playing cards in random order by creating a story of how characters represented by the cards relate to each other.
One aspect of our ability to have a theory of mind is that people know they are important to us when we show that we think of them even when they are not present. Beginning a coaching session by asking about the important presentation a client gave after the last session lets him or her know that the coach carries not just the client’s identity but a sense of what is important to that client. Rapport in coaching and other relationships is greatly dependent on exercising the amazing capacity for theory of mind.
Linking Theory of Mind to Coaching
As a beginning coach, one of us (Linda) attended a demonstration of a master coach working with a woman who was trying to decide between two jobs. At one point in the demonstration, seemingly out of nowhere, the coach asked, “I’m feeling some kind of discomfort in my stomach.” The client was amazed—she had been bothered all day by a stomachache, and recognizing that feeling opened up the solution she had been looking for.
How could the coach have known about the stomachache? How does intuition happen? We do not know for sure, but a good possibility would be mirror neurons. Most coaches could give many such experiences, and paying attention to our own seemingly inexplicable sensations or seemingly unrelated thoughts or fleeting emotions makes them more likely. As coaches, our most important tool is our own mind, and much of the power of our mind comes from the ability to put ourselves in our clients’ shoes—to see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and feel with their hearts.
This capacity always comes with the warning that we never assume that what we are perceiving or feeling is necessarily relevant to the client. Even when it may be, to impose that assumption is likely to trigger a status threat. Asking respectfully acknowledges the client’s personal space and establishes a collaborative interaction so that even a mistake can contribute to understanding or creating more choices.
REPAIRING RELATIONSHIPS-SANGE
Despite our best intentions, any training we may have had as coaches, and our capacity for theory of mind, sometimes we do or say something that results in a client feeling threatened or annoyed in some way. We try to explain, but that just makes things worse. How do we recover and help our client feel safe enough to continue learning? We have discussed our hardwired sensitivity to status threats. Sometimes when a client perceives that status has been threatened, he or she reacts with anger in an attempt to subdue another or gain the upper hand. Even when we do not intend to threaten someone else’s sense of belonging, our brains are unique; we can intend one thing only to have the impact be exactly the opposite. Therefore, even the most attuned relationships occasionally are ruptured.
In a culture of competition, “put-downs” are a way to gain advantage. Rudolf Dreikurs, psychiatrist and student of Alfred Adler, identified one cost of this pattern of interaction. He called it “the ironclad logic of social living” (Dreikurs, 1971, p. ix). The moment a person feels unfairly treated, she or he begins plotting how to “get back,” as inexorably as water runs downhill. Most of us do not need to look beyond our own relationships and organizations to see examples of this. “Employee engagement” and “flat organizations” are seen as ways to combat the productivity-damaging effects of command-and-control organizational cultures.
On a more personal level, Malcolm Gladwell (2005) refers to several studies that show how inadvertent insults can result in costly consequences. For example, patients are likely to forgive medical errors by doctors who treat them respectfully but are more likely to sue those who do not. Psychotherapists have recognized the importance of repairing relationship ruptures in order to maintain a therapeutic alliance. Learning theorists insist on the importance of a caring relationship if a person is to engage in learning (Johnson, 2006). Although we do not yet have similar empirical research on the role of the relationship in coaching, it is a safe assumption that damage to the coaching relationship affects the outcome of coaching.
Given that we all occasionally step on others’ toes, how can we take responsibility for our part in a rupture without putting ourselves down or triggering another round of conflict and perhaps a permanent rupture? There is perhaps no more useful relationship skill than knowing how to apologize in order to restore a working relationship.
In Japanese Buddhism, this is called sange, pronounced SAHN-gay. Sange refers to becoming aware of effects we have created and making amends that restore harmony with others and develop our own wisdom. This ancient practice is supported by what we now know about the brain.
PREPARATION FOR SANGE Do this before saying anything to the person to whom you will apologize. Apologies most often go awry because we couple them with a defense of our own position or a reason why what we did should be excused or an explanation of why we did it. This does not help. In effect, we are adding “and you should forgive me” to our apology. Saying “should” to someone is always likely to arouse a status threat reaction. To add this insult to the perception of having already been injured only perpetuates the rupture.
Sometimes we are not sure we should be the ones apologizing. It is better not to apologize at all than to do it grudgingly. Remember how sensitive we are to other people’s intentions. The other person’s mirror neurons pick up on motor signals well before conscious processing. In such a sensitive situation, we cannot expect our lack of sincerity to go unregistered, even if it is not consciously noticed.
To shift a state of “It’s not my fault,” we invite you to have this conversation with yourself: “However small the part I played in this rupture, I played some part in it or it wouldn’t be bothering me. Among all the chain of choices I made leading up to this rupture, what could I have done differently? What choice or choices can I genuinely regret making or not making?” This internal conversation triggers a state of awareness and choice.
Example: “All You Ever Do Is Whine!”
In an interdepartmental meeting regarding information technology strategies, human resources director Frank allowed his frustration from a previous meeting to spill over. When Selma from accounting pointed out that his new idea would mean extra work for her, Frank responded, “All you ever do is whine!” Selma clenched her jaw and Frank saw a red flush spread underneath her collar. For the next three days, Selma was “too busy” to return calls or e-mails regarding the project Frank was supposed to complete by the end of the week. Frank realized he needed to apologize in order to repair the rupture in their working relationship.
Frank began by realizing that he had not dealt well with his frustration at the time of the meeting preceding his outburst to Selma. His statement “All you ever do…” was simply not true. If that was all Selma ever did, they would not have been able to work together in the past. Frank realized he had, quite simply, misspoken, and that warranted an apology. He made an appointment with Selma, making sure they both had the time and privacy to talk. He then followed the first principles of sange.
Steps in Sange
• S—simplicity. Keep it simple. Say, “I apologize for making that remark.” Or “I am very sorry for forgetting your vacation request.” No excuses. No explanations. Focus first on apologizing for what you are responsible for doing or not doing. Avoid the temptation to elaborate on how bad or guilty you feel. This can be seen as a demand for pity and for making you feel better. As much as possible, think about how the other person feels. If it can be said simply, you may want to recognize something like, “You didn’t deserve that.”
Then stop and allow the other person to respond however she or he chooses. You cannot control the other’s response, and to expect that the other person is ready to accept your apology only sets you up for an escalation of conflict. If the other person’s status threat response is still active, she or he may react negatively. By understanding this, you may be able simply to let the reaction be what it is rather than allowing your own status to be threatened.
Example: “You Deserve Better”
After closing the door to Selma’s office, Frank said, “I want to apologize for the remark I made at the meeting. You deserve better.”
Selma replied, “You’re right. I do deserve better. I’ve worked damn hard to support your projects. You know that.”
• A—acknowledgment. After noting your responsibility for a choice that contributed to the rupture, put yourself in the position of the other person and acknowledge how he or she might have felt. “That must have felt so embarrassing for you.” “I’m guessing that you felt quite alone.”
Once again, stop and allow the other to respond. You may have been quite wrong in your assessment, but that is not the point. Rather, by making room for the other person’s feelings, you have acknowledged that his or her reaction is legitimate, and that is a big step toward calming a status threat reaction.
Example: “You Must Have Felt Really Hurt”
Frank: “You must have felt really hurt by that.”
Selma: “Yes, I was.”
• N—needs of the situation. What happens next is contingent upon the needs of the situation, in particular what the relationship needs in order to reach mutual goals. Determining this requires making a shift from “me versus you” to “we.” One way to do this is to say what you want from an ideal relationship in this context: “I really want us to work well together.” “I hope we can make this team really perform.”
Usually lower-order competitive and vengeful goals, such as “You made me look bad and I’ll get you for it,” generate conflict and relationship ruptures. If you and the other person are in a common situation, in a system, then at some level your welfare is interdependent. What are goals at that level?
Example: “That’s What I Want”
Frank: “We can really kick ass when we work together. That’s what I want.” Selma: “Yes, that’s what I want too. I just couldn’t believe that you seemed to forget that.”
• G—gratitude. Both appreciative inquiry and positive psychology have emphasized the benefits of being in a grateful state of mind. This moves us toward people rather than against them and assures us of belonging, thus opening up our creativity. What is it about the other person that you are truly, genuinely, sincerely grateful for? However difficult this situation has been, it could end up being a very important learning experience for you. What have you learned and how grateful are you for that?
Again, once you have stated what you are grateful for, leave some room for the other to respond—without expecting anything in particular about that response. Again, activate your hub or impartial observer simply to allow that response rather than being captured by any potential threat or resentment. Sometimes you may be surprised at the other person’s willingness to take responsibility.
Example: “You Hold Me to High Standards”
Frank: “The truth is, you don’t whine. You hold me to high standards, and thank goodness. That’s one of your greatest strengths. It’s part of what I appreciate most about you.”
Selma: “That’s important to me. I can see how sometimes I go overboard with it and it sounds like I’m only complaining.”
• E—exploration. Only when both of you have shifted to an appreciative perspective can you explore what you could do differently next time—what you can do, not what the other person should do. If you are still angry or in a one-up-one-down position, whatever you say will come across as a status threat. But from a collaborative stance, you can ask how to make amends.
Example: “I’m Going to Do My Best”
Frank: “I can tell you that next time I get frustrated, I’m going to do my best to just admit it rather than lashing out.”
Selma: “And I’ll work on saying something positive before I point out problems.”
Frank: “Is there anything I can do to make this up to you?”
Selma: “Sure. How’s about an extra week’s vacation?” They laugh. “If that’s not on the table, let’s just have a cup of coffee and we’ll call it even.”
Not only do seemingly small interactions such as this restore working relationships, they also contribute to the increasing complexity, and thus the maturity and viability, of the relationship and the organizational system of which it is a part. Both Frank and Selma end up with greater confidence in themselves and each other, a greater sense of fulfillment because of the quality of their social relationships, and better productivity because they engage the synergy of collaboration. Interactions such as this are the building blocks of a collaborative organizational culture. They also build the parts of our brains that depend on collaborative, contingent social input—attuned relating.
Sange is a five-step technique that may help clients when they want to repair a relationship:
1. S—Simple apology.
2. A—Acknowledgment of the other’s feelings.
3. N—Focus on needs of the situation.
4. G—Gratitude for other’s strengths.
5. E—Exploration of how to prevent future ruptures.
Presenting this as a prescription is nowhere near as effective as asking clients to identify what it is about an apology they have received that works or does not work for them. However, the sange outline may help clients put words to what they have discovered, making it less likely that they will forget.
RESOLVING CONFLICT—STOP AND GROW
A similar caveat applies to techniques for conflict resolution. When a client and another person, or two or more clients in a team, are locked in a power struggle, it is helpful for coaches to be familiar with the principles that underlie how to resolve the struggle without either party feeling defeated.
Many times power struggles feel like the clash of an immovable object and an irresistible force. One person wants one thing and the other wants exactly the opposite. Each acts as if his or her very life depends on winning, or at least not losing, the struggle. If one wins, the other loses, and vice versa. This can paralyze a project or a department or even a whole company. Coaches or leaders may be called on to resolve the impasse.
It is often obvious to observers that the two protagonists are locked into a narrow view of the situation. But remember that fear and status threats can shut down our brain’s capacity to see a bigger picture or consider other points of view. The question is how to calm the amygdala response so as to allow a meta-view to emerge. Often this can be accomplished by encouraging either or both protagonists to ask different questions.
Linda has worked with eminent psychologist Richard Kopp and Adler faculty member Jeanie Nishimura to develop a staged series of questions they call the Stop and Grow Model shown in Figure 15.1.
Figure 15.1 How to Stop and Grow ©2006, Adler International Learning Inc. Reproduced with permission
The questions are ones that a coach can use to help a client resolve a power struggle, whether the other person is present or not.
Using an analogy to a stop sign, here are seven types of questions to ask, followed by comments:
1. Stop. What am I feeling? Do I want to keep this up? If I keep doing what I’ve been doing, will anything change? Will the other person change if I do it harder? Has it worked so far? Has it worked in the past?
Remember that naming an emotion calms the amygdala. Talking about it changes the feeling. Trying to suppress it maintains arousal and interferes with prefrontal processing such as seeing the big picture, regulating one’s emotions, or empathy. Watch for a change in energy that indicates a reduction in arousal. At that point, the client may be ready to ask himself or herself a different set of questions. Asking for permission to introduce these may further calm the amygdala by reassuring the client of her or his autonomy in the matter.
2. Look. What actually happened when I got into this struggle? If I were a video camera, what would I have recorded? What specifically did I see, say, and do? What did the other person say and do? How did I respond? How did the other person respond?
The point of these questions is to go down the Ladder of Inference to the concrete, specific details of what was said and done. When clients step back and imagine themselves to be a camera, they take on the perspective of an observer. This is another technique for calming an aroused limbic system. Stripping the conflict to the bare events sets the stage for building new meaning.
3. Listen. If I run the video in slow motion before my mind’s eye, what was I telling myself at each point? What was I believing about what happened? What could the other person have been believing in order to say or do what happened? What questions must I have been asking to do that? What questions must the other person have been asking to do that?
Albert Ellis insisted that A, or action, was connected with C, or consequence, only by going through B, or belief. But we are mostly unaware of B, and jump straight from what someone does to how we will react without recognizing the belief that connects them.
Rather than disputing the belief, as Ellis taught therapists to do, coaches rely on the ability of the clients to reappraise their belief once they are aware of it. These questions also activate the client’s theory of mind so that they are more likely to be able to take the perspective of the other person.
4. Think. What are the feeling/belief patterns that this interaction represents? Am I thinking that the other person should see things the way I do? Is that related to any annoyance I feel? Ought he to do as I say without question? Is that connected with my anger? Does she not see that I am right and she is wrong? Could that be why I am feeling so indignant? Is he pushing me beyond my comfort level? Does that explain my resentment? What goal is indicated by this feeling/belief pattern? Do these (or any other feeling/belief patterns identified) show up anyplace else in my life?
This series of questions encourages self-reflection. It takes the focus off the other person—after all, it is futile to try to make someone else change. We can only change ourselves. If the client sees patterns across other areas of his or her life, making those connections may release a feeling of reward that will go a long way toward shifting his or her state of mind.
5. Shift. Quite aside from my feelings or goals or the other person’s feelings or goals, what are the needs of the situation? What would be best for the organization? For the relationship? What unrecognized potential is there here? If I could do something to make all our dreams come true, what would it be? What are my values? What are the organization’s values?
These are meta-perspective questions. They require the client to step up to higher and higher levels of generality. This activates the prefrontal cortex, which coordinates planning, emotion regulation, and morality.
6. Choose. What options can I commit myself to without regret or resentment? Which ones can I do without demanding that the other person change? Which is most likely to meet the needs of the situation? Which best reflects my values?
Remember that it is difficult under the best of circumstances for anyone to hold more than three options in mind at one time. Two is optimal. The above questions are designed to eliminate options until a very few are left. Having gone through these steps, it is likely that the client’s brain has been calmed enough to free up working memory required for making a decision between two choices.
7. Act. What will make it most likely that I will put the chosen option into action? How can I hold myself accountable? What supports will help? What barriers might stand in the way? What have I learned?
Often, going through this process will result in a feeling of insight accompanied by energy that can be used for action. Coaches are trained to establish accountability so that thought exercises end up with changes in the real world.
The conclusion of this process is the beginning of the next cycle. At the point where we catch ourselves repeating unwanted behavior or not liking the consequences of new actions, we stop, beginning at step 1. Originally developed as part of a parent coaching curriculum, this model and others that represent cyclical processes have applications throughout our personal and organizational lives.
CALMING THREATS—THE SCARF MODEL
At the 2008 NeuroLeadership Summits in Sydney, Australia, and New York, David Rock presented a model that utilizes the growing understanding of motivations underlying an approach versus an avoidance response (Rock, 2008). We have examined the effects on the brain of threats that arouse the limbic system, reducing the ability of the prefrontal cortex to plan and create. In organizations, this arousal and resulting avoidance behavior can be a major challenge to leaders who wish to promote collaboration and creativity. David’s SCARF model provides an easy-to-remember guide that coaches can use to help leaders overcome this challenge. The term “SCARF” stands for:
• Status
• Certainty
• Autonomy
• Relatedness
• Fairness
Status. “The perception of a potential or real reduction in status can generate a strong threat response” (Rock, 2008, p. 46). And it is easy to arouse this response. Merely offering advice or telling someone how to do something better when they have not asked for help can imply a lower status. On the other hand, leaders, who understand how to reward employees with a status boost can reap the benefits of a more engaged workforce. Because we use the same brain circuits to evaluate ourselves as we do to evaluate others, even out-performing ourselves can elevate our sense of status.
Certainty. Uncertainty creates an error response, a mismatch between what we expect and what we are getting, that reduces our ability to attend to our goals. Many times, leaders withhold negative information for fear that it will create panic. In fact, even bad news can be preferable to not knowing. And even finding out when we will find out can be calming, as in being told “We will find out the answer and report back in 48 hours.” Setting objectives at the beginning of conversations or meetings not only helps to organize discussion, it lends a sense of certainty. Leaders and their coaches would do well to keep the creation of certainty in mind, even in situations of uncertainty.
Autonomy. We have given examples of the beneficial effects of choice on brain and body. Autonomy has to do with the perception of control or choice over the environment, especially over potential stressors. Being given a choice feels good. However, working with others on a team requires that each member’s autonomy is reduced. Leadership that allows the team to create its own ground rules for achieving organizational goals can help balance autonomy with group needs.
Relatedness. Alfred Adler posited the sense of belonging as a major motivator and contributor to mental health, and research by Baumeister and Leary (1995) supports this view. Whether one is “in” or “out” of the group is a judgment made very quickly by automatic brain processes, and meeting a stranger generates a rapid threat response. Moving from “out” to “in” is accompanied by a comforting release of the hormone oxytocin for both parties, and that further increases trust and the likelihood of collaboration. David points out that creating a feeling of connectedness among people who must work together but seldom or never meet, as in a globally scattered workforce, is a particularly challenging problem. Using technology, such as telephone bridge lines or videoconferencing to promote informal social interaction, is not a waste of time when the benefits of trust and collaboration are taken into account. Coaches who understand the dynamics of relatedness can help leaders meet this challenge.
Fairness. We have learned from anthropology that reciprocity is a universal value among human beings. From the perspective of the brain, we have a built-in unfairness detector, as parents will attest every time their children protest, “That’s not fair!” The hierarchical model of management prescribes secrecy and a “do as you’re told” mentality. But modern leadership practices recognize that transparency and open communication decrease employee dissatisfaction and sense of being treated unfairly. Of course, having clear ground rules and procedures and applying them consistently is crucial for an atmosphere of mutual respect. Asking teams to make their own decisions, such as for workload assignments, further enhances a sense of fairness.
Example: Maple Leaf Foods and Sunrise Propane
Management of the threat response becomes most crucial during a business crisis. When there is an actual threat, even leading to death, how can the SCARF model help to set things right?
Two Canadian corporations went through tragedies in the summer of 2008. An outbreak of the food-borne bacterium Listeria monocytogenes that resulted in several deaths was traced to a Maple Leaf Foods plant on August 23. Maple Leaf produces and sells processed meat products. One day later, a previous recall of some products was expanded, and the plant was shut down. Immediately, chief executive officer (CEO) Michael McCain appeared on television to speak openly about what was happening and to issue an apology; other leaders gave interviews in various media; the company took out informational ads; and a Web site was set up to answer questions from the public. Despite what was clearly a tragedy and could have been a disaster that spelled the end of the business, stock prices for Maple Leaf Foods dipped in September but by December were back at pre-August levels.
Sunrise Propane, a plant that stores and distributes propane, exploded on August 10, forcing 12,000 neighbors from their homes, destroying or damaging businesses and residences, and leaving a firefighter and employee dead. Sunrise’s response was very different from that of Maple Leaf. The company remained tight-lipped, issuing terse statements only after conclusions could be reached, such as whether the employee had indeed been working during the explosion. Communications came from “the company” or a “spokesperson” rather than from a recognizable head of the corporation. Information was released grudgingly. In December 2008, a judge made a rare ruling directing the release of all government, regulatory, and company reports regarding the explosion to lawyers representing clients in a class-action suit. The company’s stock is not publicly traded, so is difficult to track, but one can surmise that, today, much more negative reactions surround Sunrise Propane than Maple Leaf Foods.
What accounts for the contrasting results for these two companies? The tragedies of a Listeria outbreak and an explosion are guaranteed to produce a withdrawal response. Maple Leaf handled this with a SCARF-wise strategy; Sunrise Propane did the opposite. Maple Leaf CEO McCain made himself vulnerable by facing television cameras and reporters immediately rather than arranging for a scripted appearance. Dressed in an open-collared shirt that deemphasized status, rather than in a suit and tie, he appeared and behaved like any person who was facing a tragic situation. Sunrise Propane, by its silence, emphasized its distance from and higher status than the public or its victims.
Regarding certainty, Maple Leaf gave regular reports as to recall, plant closure, and the detailed inspection of every part of the plant that eventually identified one machine as harboring the bacterium. Sunrise left its employees, victims, and the public wondering.
Although CEO McCain took the lead in making appearances, Maple Leaf allowed autonomy to its other executives and leaders, encouraging them to represent the company’s commitment to openness. Sunrise put out official announcements and directed inquiries to its designated spokesperson.
McCain demonstrated a sense of relatedness to those customers who had fallen ill or died. In his initial television appearance, he became emotional and allowed his grief to show. This demonstrated a human connection and allowed for others to feel the same. At least one blue-collar worker responded, “I trust that man.” No such opportunity for connection occurred for Sunrise.
Fairness was demonstrated by McCain’s apology and the company’s willingness to negotiate a settlement with victims without being forced into it by the courts. Sunrise Propane is engaged in a class-action lawsuit.
Coaches can recommend the acronym SCARF to remind leaders to initiate brain-wise responses in day-to-day interactions. Aside from immediately freeing employees from a productivity-limiting withdrawal response, the organization will be practicing what may very well make the difference between survival and demise in the case of a crisis.
SCARF, sange, Stop-and-Grow, and other techniques presented in this chapter are merely the beginning of applying knowledge of the brain to NeuroLeadership. As research, conferences, and publications proliferate, coaches and leaders will gain even more ways to potentiate organizations and individuals in them.
PRACTICE GUIDE FOR COACHING WITH THE BRAIN IN MIND—GET ALONG WITH OTHERS
Fears for our safety and security stimulate an amygdala response. Modern research has confirmed that Alfred Adler was correct in positing a human need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and we have described the brain’s sensitivity to status threats. Uncertainty and change result in limbic system arousal, as does being boxed in with no choices. Being around people we do not trust or even people we do not know well adds to the stress response. Researchers at the Social Cognitive Neuroscience Lab at UCLA (Tabibnia, Satpute, & Lieberman, 2008) have found that the reward circuitry in people’s brains is stimulated by being treated fairly whereas unfairness triggers avoidance and stress. Is it any wonder that organizations are often minefields for stress explosions?
We know that stress reduces our cognitive processing capacity—that being under pressure means we are much less likely to be able to take in information. And our capacity for empathy and seeing things from another’s point of view is reduced when we are under stress. How, then, can an executive or organizational coach make it more likely that coaching will have an effect rather than being ignored or not even heard?
When coaches keep the brain in mind, they have the capacity to:
• Engage in collaborative, contingent conversations that lead to attuned relationships and repair damaged ones.
• Examine “mistakes” or conflict so as to know better which intuition or internal voice to listen to and which to ignore in the future.
• Reduce the danger response and increase the reward response by enhancing:
• Status.
• Certainty.
• Autonomy.
• Relatedness through trust.
• Fairness.
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.