GETTING TEAMS TO SUCCEED: A NEUROLOGIST’S VIEWPOINT: 1) Survival versus Gratification

GETTING TEAMS TO SUCCEED: A NEUROLOGIST’S VIEWPOINT

1)     Survival versus Gratification

Pieter Kark, MD

[Fig. 1 Picture Of Brain From Left] 

Fig. 1 The mass on top is the hemisphere of the forebrain, motor systems largely in front (frontal lobe); memory, emotions, smell, sense of equilibrium and hearing, and conscious vision in the temporal lobe of the lower side; occipital lobe low and at the back. The cerebellum is just below the hemisphere. The lower brain stem extends downwards.

Some executives and managers realize that the most effective way to get employees and teams to succeed is to praise, encourage, let people work at their own pace and time, let them work in their own ways, and from time to time make gentle suggestions for improvement.

Others think this is “soft” or “touchy-feely”. Their way to get work out of people is to ride them firmly, direct them concisely, or ride them hard; tell them exactly what to do, chastise or punish errors or falling behind, compare them unfavorably with colleagues, or use favoritism as carrot-and-stick. Some use these techniques without realizing they are doing it.

How do these management styles compare with what we know about how the brain works? Do they reflect what doctors and scientists have learned about how the brain affects the ways people and teams work?  Yes. We know enough about the brain to realize that there is nothing soft or touchy-feely about the first approach. It turns on circuits in the brain that inspire individuals and teams to do their best. On the other hand, the abrupt or carrot-and-stick style is like taking a wooden ship towards a rocky shore in a gale.

Why? In a review in The Neuroleadership Journal 1 (2008) Dr. David Rock described groups of traits he calls “SCARF”. SCARF is the acronym for Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. Scientific studies have shown that increasing these five traits increases productivity by increasing comfort,  creativity, and intuition. Going against any one of the traits has been shown to decrease effectiveness and productivity. Effectiveness and productivity drop in a fraction of a second; they drop a lot, and it takes hard work over a long time to get effectiveness and productivity back.

Status is social status, intellectual status, or personal sense of honor and worth within a group, a department, an organization, or a company. Certainty means the ability to know from moment to moment how an action or a series of actions will influence efforts to get the effect one wants and to avoid or reduce errors. It is a subconscious state of the brain when planning or carrying out complex tasks.  Autonomy means being free to choose between possibilities. It is what gives a person or a group a sense of being in control. Relatedness means feeling part of a group of friends. Lack of relatedness is what someone feels when (s)he is outside a clique or is forced to be face-to-face with an enemy. Fairness means feeling that authorities are treating you the same way that they are treating others: no prejudices, no insiders, no favoritism.

Workers and “reports” feel these traits or their absence. Their managers may not. A manager who is abrupt or uses a carrot-and-stick may not intend to undercut the SCARF traits. (S)he may not recognize (s)he is undercutting. What counts is how the people feel who are being managed.

There is a basis in the brain for the effect these traits have on work. Yes, these traits are also principles one can reach from studying consciousness, or from many spiritual pathways. Since there is a basis in the brain, each of these approaches, scientific, consciousness, spiritual,  reflects real truth about human beings. What is the basis in the brain?

Most of our brain deals with subconscious, reflex actions. Two big areas of reflex actions are those that keep us out of danger, making sure we avoid potential enemies or threats. This is survival. This is a basic need. It is much stronger than the second, opposite reflex actions of gratification. Gratification is wanting to be with people we love and things we love, wanting to stay with a supportive family or group, enjoying life, getting rewards.

The parts of the brain that deal with survival are largely toward the front surface of the forebrain, low down on the front sides, and deep within the front part of the brain.

Here is a technical paragraph: The neurological terms for these parts are the temporal lobe (the lower lateral lobe of the forebrain): a circular area going through the middle and deep parts of the frontal and temporal lobes known as the limbic system (Fig 3 a &b), and the deep, frontal extreme of the basal ganglia called the amygdala (Figs 3 a, 4 & 5). The parts also include a nearby portion of the surface of the brain called the insula (Fig 6). The amygdala and cingulate gyrus (Fig. 2 b and 5) are part of the limbic system. The insula is anatomically and physiologically close to them. The insula handles taste (disgust) and nausea. In Fig 6, a cross section of temporal lobe can be seen as the portion of the brain in outside and below the insula. The temporal lobe handles memory, emotions, and the awareness of smell, equilibrium, hearing and vision. On the cortex or outer layer of the forebrain, the very far front is called the pre-frontal cortex (Fig 7).

Fig 2. Functional map of the left hemisphere of the forebrain (cf. Fig 1)

Fig. 3 a. The limbic system within the brain.

Fig. 3 b. The mesial surface of the brain (the brain cut in half down the middle, front to back): the purple area is the part of the limbic system visible from the mesial surface. The brown is pre-frontal cortex of the frontal lobe.

Fig. 4. Amygdala and the Rest of the Basal Ganglia within the Brain. Note that the tail of the caudate and the amygdala lie deep in the temporal lobe.

Fig. 5. Diagram of the Amygdala and the Rest of the Basal Ganglia and Thalamus. The thalamus is a key sensory way-station and a way-station for setting the awake, conscious state.

Fig. 6 Coronal Section of Brain (side to side) Showing Amygdala, Cingulate Cortex, and Insula.

Fig. 7. Brain from Below. Top = front (Frontal Lobe). The prefrontal cortex concerned with logical, linear thinking is part of the area in brown (here and in Fig 2 b), extending to the side (laterally) on the under surface or ventral surface of the frontal lobe. The temporal lobe extends from the level of the light green outline to the curved rim of the blue dots (which indicate the regions coding for smell).

Now we are back to less technical material: The subconscious brain acts in a few thousands of a second, in 5 to 10 milliseconds. The subconscious brain treats anything that threatens any one SCARF trait (status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, or fairness) as a danger or a threat. Danger threatens survival.  The need to survive is much stronger than the need to gratify with pleasant things or rewards. When the amygdala perceives a threat, it acts in milliseconds to send the rest of the brain into a “fight-or-flight” mode. The limbic system changes emotions to fear and anger.  The limbic system also brings up memories of fearful events and things that made the person angry. The insula sends signals of disgust and nausea. The major intuitive functions of the brain shut down, leaving only the thin layer of the pre-frontal cortex active. The pre-frontal cortex produces learned, linear, logical behaviors and nothing else. All of this is the survival  mode.

There is no way to avoid the survival mode. The person who is trying to survive cannot deal with non-linear problems.  The person cannot be creative. (S)he cannot think out of the box. (S)he cannot be kind to others, cannot work out new ways of doing things, and cannot use intuition. Intense survival is every man for himself. Teamwork and social abilities disappear. Managers and executives beware: the more often people perceive threats to survival  at their workplace, the worse the consequences. Behavior gets worse. Efficiency and productivity go down. 

There are exceptions, for example people trained to deal with emergencies and disasters. These include firefighters, the military, rescue workers, or emergency room nurses and physicians. Even these highly-trained people are hyper-focused when they are in survival mode. In survival mode, they use linear logic instead of creativity.  

The only protection from this automatic fright-or-flight is if a person has learned technologies of consciousness that include skills to block negative emotional responses or to discreate the unpleasant emotions that are stirred up.

The realities of the brain have a clear message for executives, managers, organizations and companies. Encourage the SCARF traits. 1) Treat employees, staff, colleagues, and teams so they feel they are valued. 2) Treat them so  they are certain whatever they try will be appreciated whether it succeeds or fails. 3) Treat them so they know they make their own decisions about what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. 4) Make them feel they are regarded as valuable members of an organization in which superiors, peers, and people under them are friends not rivals.  5) Make sure no-one supervising them plays favorites.

Success in consulting about organizational development and success in executive coaching follow these rules. The rules aren’t new. The same points were made by great writers and statesmen throughout the ages and by the originators of many spiritual practices. What is new is that there is now hard data from studies of the human brain that show the neurological reasons why these rules are true.

To give an example about executive coaching: In his book,  “What Got You Here Won’t Get You There”, the executive coach Marshall Goldsmith gives 20 types of flaws in interpersonal behavior that damage relations in a company.  Let me assign the flaws to SCARF categories. I don’t want to minimize the deep and broad analysis Goldsmith gives. I merely want to show that there are links between Goldsmith’s approach and Rock’s.

As I read Goldsmith’s list of flaws, problems with status seem to underlie the need to win too much, the need to add too much value, the need to tell the world how smart we are, the need to make excuses, the need to cling to the past to deflect blame, the refusal to express regret, and an excessive need to be “me”. Undermining certainty seems to involve starting a sentence with “no,” “but,” or “however”; with “explaining why that won’t work”, with withholding information, and perhaps with “speaking when angry: using emotional volatility as a management tool.” Being unwilling to let people have autonomy seems to underlie making destructive comments, sarcasm, cutting remarks; withholding information, and claiming credit we don’t deserve. Several of these flaws destroy the sense of relatedness: passing judgments, making destructive comments, speaking when angry, failing to give proper recognition, claiming credit we don’t deserve, making excuses and clinging to the past to deflect blame, refusing to express regret, failing to express gratitude, and passing the buck. Fairness is damaged by failing to give proper recognition, withholding information, claiming credit we don’t deserve, playing favorites, and punishing the messenger.

An example about management consulting is Patrick Lencioni’s “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team”.  Again, my intent is merely to show links. I’m not trying to simplify Lencioni’s work.

·          Absence of Trust is the bottom of Lencioni’s pyramid of dysfunctions. Absence of trust includes a lack of a sense of relatedness. The members of a team may be assigned together, but they are suspicious and even afraid of each other. They do not feel they are a group of aligned friends. Often, they may be juggling for a sense of status. The absence of trust and its underlying issues is the first problem that needs to be solved when using Lencioni’s paradigm.

·          Fear of Conflict is the second layer of the pyramid. Fear of conflict is a fear of an open, free-flowing discussion. Why? Because people on the team don’t trust each other. Fear of conflict is an issue of relatedness.  Fear of conflict also means that the members of the team don’t feel autonomous and lack certainty about their actions in a discussion.

·          Lack of Commitment implies a lack of certainty and relatedness. Lack of commitment also means the teams’ members fear they don’t have autonomy and that their status is threatened.  

·          Avoidance of Accountability can come from problems with certainty, autonomy and relatedness. Avoidance of accountability is made worse if the team’s members have a sense of unfairness.

·          Inattention to Results comes from the sum of these problems. The sum can be stated in Lencioni’s paradigm or in David Rock’s. It is the same: people on a dysfunctional team don’t pay attention to the results they get or to the results they should be getting.

The message  is clear. Pay careful attention to the SCARF traits and needs. Are you reinforcing them with your colleagues and subordinates, letting them attain gratification in their work? Are you mistakenly undermining them, consciously or unconsciously, putting your colleagues and subordinates immediately into flight-or-fright mode with its long term consequences that prevent effectiveness and productivity?