What Can Brain Science Teach Us About Nasal Spray and Accountability?

In a recent study, researchers found that the neuropeptide Oxytocin leads to more trusting behavior, even in relationships where there’s built in conflict. Subjects that received Oxytocin through a nasal spray displayed more trust in the classic game Prisoners’ Dilemma than those that were administered just a placebo.

In Prisoners’ Dilemma, the logical bet is for both prisoners to look out for themselves and not depend on the other one being trustworthy. It’s a particularly interesting game for business because it mirrors life in most organizations. Each member stands to benefit from collective action, if everyone else is trustworthy. But if they’re not, looking out for number one is often the safer strategy. Or as a client once put it, “If it’s a question of my team being successful or sending my son to college, it’s a no brainer.”

Because of this, leaders have long struggled with the issue of trust, but now through the miracle of modern science, we have a solution. Everyone just needs a little sniff of Oxytocin nasal spray, which is apparently available on the internet for as little as $29.95 for a two week supply. That’s quite a bit cheaper than hiring a team building consultant.

Tempting as it may be, this is precisely the kind of lesson we don’t want to learn from brain science. It’s not only that the same spray could be used for dishonest purposes–imagine if it were pumped into the showrooms of used car dealers, but that we’re drawing the wrong kind of lessons from the latest discoveries. The real learning is that our behavior is driven less by the nature of any situation we may find ourselves in, than by the way we think about the situation. Change the thinking and we change the behavior, and we can it do perfectly well without recourse to pharmaceuticals.

Recently, one of my clients was distressed by the unwillingness of his direct reports to be held accountable. As a result, he was focused on how to improve the organization’s measurement systems and how to establish clear consequences for non-performance. While the right kind of measures are critical for any business and while people should not be immune from the consequences of a failure to perform, accountability is less of a problem to be solved than it is a symptom of a more basic issue.

When I talked to the direct reports, they weren’t unwilling to be held accountable. They just didn’t agree with what they were being held accountable for. Their objectives were set top down, and they felt that they didn’t match the reality of their businesses. Much as they respected and even admired their boss, they were convinced he was too far removed from operations to understand what they were up against. The perceptions of each were different and in conflict.

Our logical minds are deluded into either/or thinking. In fact, one of Aristotle’s laws of logic mandates that there can be no middle ground–something is either the case or it is not.  Either the objectives are fair or they’re not. Either the boss is right or the employees are. But when we move beyond logic and incorporate how the mind works, we appreciate that both the manager and his direct reports are right, from their point of view.

The solution to this disconnect is not tighter measures and more draconian consequences. It’s impossible to build an infallible system for accountability and threats of punishment hardly motivate people to give their all for the business. Instead, the conflict should be taken as an opportunity to rethink the business from the top down.

Our ideas are instantiated  in neural networks arranged hierarchically in the brain. Those at higher levels drive decision-making and behavior at lower levels that are in harmony with them. If we get agreement at the highest levels, operational conflicts disappear.

When I pulled together my client and his team to address the conflict over accountability, we started by agreeing on a vision for the business and a strategy to achieve it.  With everyone in sync on what they wanted to accomplish and how best to do it, the objectives and how to ensure they were met just fell out naturally. Even better, the managers now worked toward achieving their objectives because they wanted to, not because they were afraid of the consequences if they didn’t. The result was a tighter and more efficient organization, and far more engagement from everyone. In just a quarter, performance improved significantly.

A squirt of nasal spray might have made the direct reports more trusting of their boss and the boss more trusting of his people. But it wouldn’t have made the direct reports able to achieve objectives that didn’t fit their businesses. The best chance of improving performance is to address how people think at the highest level.

Leave a Comment  |  Permalink  |  Posted in Brain Science, Conflict Resolution, Ideas, Leadership, Management, Performance, Research

What’s Your Story?

Cognitive scientists believe that our moment to moment perceptions are tied together by our minds imposing a narrative. The story we tell ourselves then determines the meaning of our discrete experiences. It is the role of a leader to suggest a story that addresses our deepest aspirations and energizes us to pursue them.

In a recent column in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman gives us a perfect example of what happens when the narrative is missing. Reviewing all of President Obama’s policy initiatives, Friedman writes that they’re beginning “to feel like a work plan that we have to slog through,” because we’re missing the story that ties them all together and inspires.

Friedman’s description could apply to most business organizations. In the absence of a compelling corporate story told by the leadership, most people are in slogging mode. The work becomes a chore that is performed simply for a paycheck. This is not only sad, but costly.I haven’t yet met anyone that is engaged by just showing up to do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage. In the absence of a story, too many people are consigned to lives of quiet and not so quiet desperation. But this doesn’t mean that the story is simply nice to have. The difference between the productivity of people that are excited about their work and those that endure it as a necessary evil is vast.  Without the story, we sub-optimize our most valuable resource.

But the story also serves the purpose of focusing and aligning individual efforts. No objective setting process or control system can possibly cover all decisions and behavior. Without the story, wasted effort and inefficiencies abound.  With the right story in place, organizations can accomplish substantially more with less.

Unfortunately, the “soft” issues of inspirational leadership and an engaging story are all too often seen as just nice to have, and are only addressed once the “hard” business concerns are taken care of. Our logic may deceive us into believing the two can be separated, but in reality it is people, inspired and energetic or not, doing the work.

Leave a Comment  |  Permalink  |  Posted in Brain Science, Leadership, Performance

Switching Gestalts

A gestalt switch is when we change the framework we use to organize our perceptions and it fundamentally changes the meaning of what we perceive. Probably the best example is the popular old woman/young woman illusion. Seen one way, the drawing looks like an old hag, but when seen another way, it appears as a beautiful young woman.

Studies have shown that what is currently in our minds determines how we interpret the drawing. If we’re thinking about the perils of growing old, we’ll on average see the old woman.  But if we’re focused on the joys of youth and beauty, it’s the young woman that will appear.

Switching gestalts isn’t just a curiosity. It illustrates a basic principle governing how our minds work. We see what we believe, attending to information that supports our view and ignoring any that is in conflict.

The game of college football is a great example of gestalts at work. A well-executed strategy is a thing of beauty. From a bird’s eye view, its choreography rivals ballet. The athletic ability of the individual players can be a marvel to behold. The team spirit is infectious.

But football is also a horribly brutal game. The players are coached to hit hard, so that they knock loose the ball or take a player out of the action. Every game is marked by injuries.  When a player is lying on the field and not moving, the frame shifts and the game is no longer fun to watch.

Yet every weekend, I tune in to watch my alma mater, the University of Michigan. When the team wins, as irrational as it sounds, it seems to affirm my identity. My years in Ann Arbor were transformational and have informed my life and work. My liberal arts education taught me to respect intelligence, and it taught me the importance of human values, none more basic than the imperative to treat people with respect.

This has been a controversial period for the team.  A new coach, Rich Rodriquez, was hired from the outside last year and there were some contractual issues that cast a pall on his departure from West Virginia. This year opened with the news that he was involved in a failed real estate deal with an accused felon. Then just before the first game, the coach was accused by six Michigan players of violating NCAA rules on the number of hours of practice allowed per week.

But Michigan played brilliantly in its opening game and the sportscasters calling the game suggested that the allegations were just sour grapes by a few disaffected players. As I watched my team win, it seemed a plausible explanation to me. And, of course, West Virginia would not be happy about losing its coach, and how could he be responsible for the actions of his business partner.

The team didn’t do as well against Iowa in the sixth week and the precocious quarterback Tate Forcier struggled. After a particularly difficult series of plays, Forcier was benched and the television cameras captured Rodriquez going up one side of him and down the other.  It was then that the gestalt switched.

When the Michigan coach bullied his quarterback, he offended those very values that I associate with my years at the school. As a result, the real estate deal looked even more questionable and the allegations of NCAA rules violations more credible. The coach, I concluded with newfound clarity, wasn’t a very nice person, so everything he was involved in became suspect.

But it goes beyond the issue of the coach’s values to his intelligence. Tate Forcier is an obviously skilled and dedicated quarterback. In what universe could it possibly make sense to bully him? Is he going to be more motivated as a result? Will his judgment improve?

Not according to brain science. The only thing that’s going to happen is that his amygdala will key the release of cortisol, slowing down Forcier’s brain, narrowing his vision, and making his judgment worse. The coach’s aggression will summon up aggression on Forcier’s part, creating precisely the opposite kind of relationship high performance depends on.

It seems that Rodriquez has a rather skewed perception of human relationships. It isn’t surprising that the gestalt that would lead him to bully a player would also lead to a business partnership with a man of questionable character, to a less than congenial departure from his former school, and to a broken relationship with half a dozen of his players.

He lives in a world where hitting hard is a virtue, even when it makes no sense.

Leave a Comment  |  Permalink  |  Posted in Brain Science, Ideas, Management, Performance

« Previous Posts  |  More Posts »