A Google search for “how to achieve goals” netted 184,000,000 results that offered easy steps and ultimate guides.  If a market is driven by needs then perhaps these results evidence the importance of goals for organizations and individuals.   What do neuroleaders need to know about the biology of goals?

A compelling thought is the dual, nonconscious and conscious, nature of goal pursuit.  Findings from the field of neuroscience suggest that individuals’ who are actively engaged in the pursuit of a goal automatically evaluate relevant objects in a more approach-friendly manner. (Ferguson and Bargh, 2004)  These evaluations occur within fractions of a second and do not require conscious perception.  Neuroscientist, Evian Gordon’s, 1-2-4 Model seems particularly relevant here. (Gordon, 2009) The overarching, organizing principle of the brain, to minimize danger and maximize reward(1); the nonconscious and conscious nature of our brain(2) and the emotion, thinking, feeling, regulation modalities(4)  all seem to support this neuroscientific view of goal pursuit. (Gordon, 2009)

Several factors seem to be particularly relevant to the automatic evaluation of objects including currency, relevance and approach friendliness. (Ferguson and Bargh, 2004)  While currency and relevance seem somewhat obvious, approach friendliness appears more complex.  Are NeuroLeaders more effective if they promote the positive rewards of goal pursuit or the negatives that would be avoided?

Apparently this might depend on an individual’s self-report of their preference for a focus on the reward’s of goal achievement or the avoidance of punishment. (Carver and White, 1994) So how does a NeuroLeader motivate nonconscious (invisible) predispositions of other individuals?

NeuroLeaders understand the neurological diversity within their organizations.  They self-regulate to maintain their performance zone for optimal leadership and well-being.

“Action seems to follow feeling, but really…action and feeling go together;

and by regulating the action, which is under the more direct control of the will,

 we can indirectly regulate the feeling, which is not.”

William James 1890