Brain science challenges conventions

Four SCNetwork members discuss Dalton Kehoe’s recent presentation

 

 

Tracey White: Dalton Kehoe provided a simple model to understand complex brain science that is rocking the social sciences and challenging our notions of economics, business and management.  His rider and elephant metaphor offers a mental image that illustrates the growing understanding of how our brains work. 

A worldview that rests on the concept of rationality has been around since the Enlightenment. But, neuroscience is discovering our brains don’t function that way at all. 

Rather than being single-minded, unemotional and detached, we have two minds. The familiar, “rational” thinking is our conscious mind at work. Kehoe likens this to a rider sitting atop an elephant — our unconscious, emotional mind. It’s also called thinking fast and slow.

Neuroscience long ago rejected the idea that humans are unemotional and detached. Kehoe showed us how the nature of our organizations and management behaviour are not aligned to the way our brains operate.

We are creatures of connection. Persistent, positive connection creates trust that, in turn, drives engagement at work. Wow, are we getting it wrong.

Silvia Lulka: How many times have we heard someone say, “If only our teams, bosses, spouses or kids came with an owner’s manual?” To me, that’s one of the great things about neuroscience — it is as close as we’ve come to us having an owner’s manual for ourselves and other people.  

Kehoe’s presentation was full of interesting research about our brains, how we actually experience the world around us, how we think, feel, process information and make connections with each other. It provided the science to validate what we’ve known for decades about what engages human beings. As he said, we are creatures of connection, and yet so much of traditional organizations don’t reflect that. 

I also found it fascinating to hear him explain the neuroscience on just how negative control-centred structures impact us. They are entirely counterproductive and do the exact opposite of what we intend them to do.  

It’s a topic that feels daunting. After all, research shows that much of what we’ve considered standard management practice isn’t attuned to how our brains are wired.

I am left in a place asking what I can do. So, my challenge to all of us is this: How can we make a conscious effort every day to purposefully connect with someone at work, especially as managers and leaders of people?

Paul Pittman: It’s always satisfying to have science tell us why we do things and Kehoe certainly did that for many in the audience. I once had a boss who when faced with a tough choice would go with the gut reaction or the emotional preference, but would then use the technique of questioning herself as to why she had jumped to that particular conclusion.

In other words, she attempted to objectively rationalize her initial emotional impression to make sure there was logic behind it. It’s a good discipline that I continue to use.

The science lesson was insightful, but I came away with few practical tools. The examples used to demonstrate the benefits of engagement that stem from mindful management seemed familiar and were not all successful examples of increased connection. 

For instance, employee loyalty at United States grocery chain Wegman’s, a family-owned-and-operated business, is likely not the result of intentional intervention. Family-run businesses have higher levels of engagement (as traditionally measured) because employees are typically treated like family and, consequently, employ deeper screening for fit (meaning entry into the family).

Those who have been successful in leadership, in negotiating roles or labour relations, now have a scientific validation for their trusted techniques.  Bees really do come to honey. And, as for SCNetwork, we have no trouble with connectivity, as we saw from the enthusiastic participation in the exercises.

Kehoe presented a timely and excellent perspective that should inform contemporary performance assessment and even compensation. There is no doubt human beings have always responded to “emotional signals” in the way he suggests.

For earlier generations, many of whom had experienced military service, the largely condemned command-and-control-style leadership was expected in the workplace. Whether more productivity could have been achieved in those times, with a greater understanding of connectivity, we will never know but, nonetheless, it was not uncommon for boomers to do things “for the company” or hear from them that “the company’s interests come first.”

Today’s younger workers, despite our efforts, may not carry such a deep commitment to “company” because of the economic reality in which they find themselves. Connections, therefore, need to be formed in different ways through leadership and teams using mindful management to trigger similar emotions.

As Kehoe suggested, enormous sums of money have been spent trying to improve engagement, without really moving the needle. This causes me to question whether the way we have elected to measure engagement is actually a true reflection of employee sentiment.

Kehoe’s view is that the more we invest in relationships, the more business will succeed, to prove that someone needs to correlate the direct impact of engagement improvement activities on business results where all other extraneous factors have been neutralized.

White: I agree, Paul. New technologies are driving the commoditization of work and it is changing attitudes towards employers. Too frequently, the attitude of younger workers is seen as a lack of commitment or loyalty, but that’s a misreading of current economic conditions. 

A just-in-time workforce, powered by technology, working in teams located across the world, is a business reality. There’s no doubt this change has impacted the nature of employee engagement. Loyalty is something very different for millennials than for their boomer parents.

I thought Kehoe’s discussion of Google’s attempt to shift management norms was instructive. We profiled Google at SCNetwork in 2013. What’s unique about their approach is the use of coaching and peer review. Managers focus on talent development while performance assessment comes in a 360-degree fashion. Google has conducted significant research into the functioning of teams to maximize collaboration, creativity and innovation. 

As we’ll see at upcoming events, new technologies are facilitating teamwork and completely changing how work gets done. Research from the most productive organizations already demonstrates that the ability to connect with co-workers to innovate and create value is a differentiator.

Michael Clark: Gratitude is owed to Kehoe and his neuroscience fellow travellers for supplying the evidence that our heuristic-based best practices for employee engagement are valid.  Silvia, what a great metaphor: “The owner’s manual.” Though I have to say it’s a manual without a detailed “troubleshooting” chapter.

I have to agree with Paul: I emerged with few practical tools that I’m not already using and promoting.

We come back to the original problem, though. Long ago, we human capital practitioners sensed that humans are more powerfully wired for connection at an emotional level than a rational level. We have spent decades with our more-or-less flimsy heuristics trying, and largely failing, to lead our organizations to value and, importantly, reward employees who bring that quality to their interactions.

The question is: How can we leverage this evidence with organizational decision-makers and influencers to create more effective human capital policy, particularly around engagement? Perhaps our first step is to realize our CEOs have elephants, too.

When engaging “up,” how can we tap into the emotional facet of executives — their fears and desires — to lead them to be a value-speaking elephant throughout the organization?

Latest stories