What is engagement?  According to various dictionaries, there are many interpretations.  Interestingly, the definitions proposed are polar opposites ranging from ‘a hostile meeting of opposing military forces in the course of a war’, to ‘a promise to marry’. Perhaps an idealistic perspective would be that increasingly positive definitions of the word might reflect a hopeful shift in cultural awareness surrounding the concept of personal connectivity.  In what ways is neuroscience shaping a compelling, biological definition of ‘engagement’?

U.S. research firm, The Conference Board, defines engagement as ‘a heightened emotional connection that employees feel for their organization, that influences them to exert greater discretionary effort to their work’.  (Rock and Tang, 2009) Gallup research has shown that engaged employees are more productive, profitable, create stronger customer relationships, and stay longer with their company. (Gallup, 2006)

Neuroscientist, Evian Gordon, asserts that the brain’s main organizing principle is to minimize danger and maximize reward.  (Gordon, 2009)  If engagement is ‘seen and felt’ to be rewarding then what have we learned about its neural network?

Recent research suggests that the brain’s reward and self-regulation networks are most relevant to engagement.

The SCARF model (Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness) identifies five domains that have the potential to trigger threat or reward.  (Rock and Tang, 2009) The model maps to varying degrees with the Gallup Organizations Q12 engagement survey. 

During a recent leadership teamwork session, ROI Executive Coaching focused on engagement as a basis for improved performance.  While the SCARF model is a useful reminder of key domains relevant to engagement, the model itself was not introduced during the day and a half session.  This is most likely due to the fact that the lead coach preferred to integrate key engagement concepts more organically than through an explicit model.

NeuroLeaders embrace an evolved definition of engagement and are intentional about activating the brain’s neural network for reward to cultivate peak performance and well-being.

GALLUP 2006. The Gallup Study: Engaged Employees Inspire Company Innovation. Gallup Management Journal

GORDON, E. 2009. Brain Revolution, San Francisco, Brain Revolution Publications.

Whether or not you consider yourself more or less adaptable is beside the point: You are.  Scientists have suggested that you replace 1 percent of your cells every day, that’s 30 percent in a month so in roughly 3 months you get a whole new you. (Fredrickson, 2009) The mystery of maintaining homeostasis during constant change is addressed by the concept of dynamic stability, the capacity to change while remaining stable over time. It is a key concept for healthy organizations and individuals. (Rock and Page, 2009)

What is the invisible glue that holds us (each other and systems) together during change? 

It seems counterintuitive, though worth considering, that being “open” is central to dynamic stability.

* Organizations are living, open systems capable of self-renewal. (Wheatley, 2006)

* Positivity opens us to a broader range of thoughts and actions (Fredrickson, 2009)

* Our emotions are an open-loop system. (Goleman et al., 2002)

To be open, as it seems life is, is consistent with the concept of the social brain and, perhaps, a critical ingredient in the invisible glue that binds us, with a sense of relatedness.

An initial organization assessment, Birkman Method tool and individual coaching sessions informed the design of a recent leadership development workshop with 21 senior level executives.  Relatedness emerged as a central organizing theme.  “Conflict management” and “receiving recognition” were issues. 

Taking a NeuroLeader perspective, research and exercises were integrated into the workshop experience such as a video clip and discussion on mirror neurons, impacts of positivity and recruitment of a positivity monitor to track the ratio during the workshop, Birkman exercises that explicated individuals’ common strengths and enhanced a shared “in” group theory of mind (ToM), self regulation techniques and sharing of personal positive stories with others.

Workshop evaluations expressed clear takeaways including increased self-awareness and other-awareness, significant insights surrounding positivity, increased understanding of self-regulation and personal accountability.

NeuroLeaders understand the importance of an intentional Colleague Relatedness Management (CRM) system – for the health and dynamic stability of organizations and individuals into the future.

FREDRICKSON, B. 2009. Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3-to-1 Ratio that Will Change your Life, New York, Random House.

GOLEMAN, D., BOYATZIS, R. & MCKEE, A. 2002. Primal Leadership  Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.

ROCK, D. & PAGE, L. 2009. Coaching with the Brain in Mind, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons.

WHEATLEY, M. 2006. Leadership & The New Science, San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler.

“There are three things extremely hard: steel, a diamond, and to know one’s self.”  

Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Improved Almanack (1750)

 In “Flawed Self-Evaluation” investigators found that people’s opinions of themselves, their abilities, and their health outlooks are generally skewed.  (Dunning et al., 2005)  That individuals are the least accurate assessor of themselves can have serious consequences in the workplace. While this research points to ramifications such as overconfidence; current explorations into self-reflection, self-knowledge and self-control in the field of social cognitive neuroscience is revealing deeper implications for corporate leaders.  Critical issues such as conflict management, communication and decision-making are impacted by leaders’ capacities to understand themselves and others.

Current studies indicate that self-reflection consistently activates the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC). (Lieberman, 2007) The principle of plasticity suggests that as one uses an area of one’s brain it can grow and become more efficient.  Therefore, if leaders intentionally increase activation of their MPFCs studies indicate that their capacity for self-knowledge might increase.  Since a recent study indicates overlap in MPFC activation when leaders self-reflect and when they “other-reflect” (think about others), it seems that increasing self-knowledge may then increase our capacity to understand others.  

Though, there seems to be a further distinction looking at the involvement of MPFC subregions, the ventral (vMPFC) and dorsal MPFC (dMPFC).  When leaders self-reflect to guide their understanding of others minds, who seem to be sufficiently similar to them, the vMPFC is activated. The dMPFC may instead aid mentalizing for dissimiliar others.  (Mitchell et al., 2005)

Leadership development professionals can increase the activation and capacities of their clients’ MPFCs with tools and team exercises that promote self-awareness and shared values to establish sufficient similarities and generate understanding.  Since “future-self” exercises can lead to negative disassociation, leadership coaches need to integrate future goals into clients’ self-knowledge in the present.

NeuroLeaders practice stress reduction through meditation and other intentional, self-regulation strategies to exercise their MPFCs, improve their capacity to understand and connect with others, resolve conflict, facilitate positive communication, peak performance and overall well-being.

DUNNING, D., HEATH, C. & SULS, J. 2005. Flawed Self-Assessment. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 38.

LIEBERMAN, M. 2007. Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259-289.

MITCHELL, J., MAHZARIN, B. & MCRAE, N. 2005. The Link Between Cognition and Self-referential Thought in the Medial Prefrontal Cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1306-1315.

A 2008 report by Catalyst, the not-for-profit women’s research organization, noted that only 15.7% of corporate officers are women, or to put it another way, 84.3% of corporate leaders are men.  How is corporate America impacted by men’s neurological proclivities? 

Sweet Revenge?

Recent research suggests that people like cooperating with fair opponents but also seem to like punishing unfair opponents. Current neuroscience indicates that the feeling of sweet revenge is more prominent in men. In fact, in a recent study men who expressed a stronger desire for revenge, and observed an unfair player receiving painful stimuli, showed greater activation in the nucleus accumbens, known as part of the brain’s reward circuit. (Singer et al., 2006)

Researchers suggest that these findings could indicate a predominant role for males in the maintenance of justice and punishment of norm violation in human societies… what about in organizations?  (Singer et al., 2006)  Given the complex dynamics of performance-based, competitive organizations, perceptions of unfairness are common.  If the majority of leaders leaders, males, gain reward through revenge – is that justice? What if leaders misperceive fairness?

Self-Reports of Empathy

The mirror neural system (MNS) refers to brain cells that automatically reflect others’ actions, intentions and emotional state.  (Icaboni, 2008)  This idea that mirror neurons involuntarily or automatically (nonconsciously) simulate what others are going through is interesting to consider.  It begs the question, what is your MNS set point?  How accurate is your MNS?

In the research about fairness and punishment, both men and women who scored higher on standard empathy scales had higher empathy-related brain activity when observing others in pain, with activation in the anterior cingulated cortex (ACC) and anterior insula/fronto-insular cortex(AI/FI).(Icaboni, 2008)

Is the MNS at the heart of social connectedness? 

NeuroLeaders consider the connection between their MNS set-point and their attunement to social cues.  NeuroLeaders intentionally train their MNS with tools such as MyBrainSolutions(Gordon, 2009) to heighten awareness to nonverbal cues, deepen their connection with others, improve collaboration and achieve peak performance for themselves and their organizations.

GORDON, E. 2009. Brain Revolution, San Francisco, Brain Revolution Publications.

ICABONI, M. 2008. Mirroring People: The New Science of How We Connect with Others, New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

SINGER, T., SEYMOUR, B., O’DOHERTY, J. P., STEPHAN, K. E., DOLAN, R. J. & FRITH, C. D. 2006. Empathic Neural Responses are Modulated by the Perceived Fairness of Others. Nature, 439, 446-469.

Chapter 1

‘Twas a cold, blustery, November evening in Fairville.  The living room was aglow with the warm hues of a cozy fireplace.   Nestled into her favorite, overstuffed chair, 12-year-old Carla, athletic, with short, blond, curly hair, was inconsolable.  She had practiced so hard. Why did the coach choose Sarah instead of her to start on the basketball team?  It wasn’t fair.  Her father’s strong, low voice emerged from the shadows of the room with the common refrain, “I know it hurts sweetie, but life isn’t fair – so don’t expect it to be.”

Life isn’t fair? She stared intensely into the flames, searching for a way to reconcile the dissonance in her brain.  Years later, Carla, still haunted by those words, re-examines that parental wisdom. 

The expectation that life was unfair always felt unsettling – as if danger and pain lurked around the next corner.  Carla discovered the overarching principle of the brain, to minimize danger and maximize reward. (Gordon, 2009) That simple principle helped her understand her biological need to feel safe from dangers of perceived unfairness.  Fairness felt rewarding.

She discovered that the acceptance of fair offers activates the ventral striatum, the reward region in the brain.  So fairness feels good.  And, when individuals do accept an unfair offer, increased activity is seen in the right ventral lateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in emotion regulation.  The study suggests that the prefrontal cortex is recruited to overcome cognitive dissonance associated with acceptance of unfair offers.  (Tabibnia et al., 2008)

Further research led her to the SCARF model that addresses the social pain points of status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness. (Rock, 2008) Carla wondered whether feeling left out; lowered status on the team, and uncertainty about her position, also triggered stress at the time.

Her research helped but she still felt perplexed.

How did this example of parental wisdom shape her life? 

As Carla burrowed deeper into her favorite chair she wondered, “What if her father had said, ‘Life is fair, expect it to be?’ 

GORDON, E. 2009. Brain Revolution, San Francisco, Brain Revolution Publications.

ROCK, D. 2008. SCARF: A Brain-based Model for Collaborating with and Influencing Others. NeuroLeadership Journal.

Leaders have an estimated 60,000 thoughts and make more than 1,000 decisions each day.   When individual leaders make challenging decisions they must inhibit some thoughts and attend to others, often making faulty choices.  Whereas ant colonies, yes, ants, can make perfectly rational decisions when confronted by tough dilemmas. (Choi, C. 2009)

An investigation of tiny acorn ant colonies showed rational decision-making when they resisted inferior decoy nests and made the rational decision to remain in their homes, every  time. “We can think of a colony as an analogue for a nervous system – by understanding how decisions emerge from interactions among ants in a colony, we may learn something about how decisions emerge from the interactions among neurons in a brain,” says Stephen Pratt, behavioural ecologist at Arizona State. Hmmm.

Decision-making in real world contexts usually involves multiple strategies based on context and computational demands.  While there is much to learn about the neural mechanisms that underlie inter- and intraindividual variability in decision strategies.  (Venkatraman, V. et. Al 2009) research points to the physiology of dual-process reasoning.

NeuroLeaders seem to make decisions quick and effortlessly, based on previously established heuristics (intuition) or with considerable energy, relying on deliberate conscious processing. The former relates to the default network, multiple interacting subsystems, triggered when leaders engage in internally focused tasks. (Bownd, D. 2008)

Each time individuals apply their brains’ central breaking system, located in the Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) to override the default system and consciously focus on a selective decision-making process, it takes a lot of energy.  The cumulative effect of numerous high-energy decisions fatigues the prefrontal cortex, and impairs downstream decision-making. (Baumeister, B.J. & Masicampo 2008)

To manage the fatigue of numerous, challenging decisions the brain resorts to heuristics, cognitive rules-of-thumb, developed over time.  These mental shortcuts can save time and energy but can also distort a leader’s thinking. (Wray, H. 2010)

NeuroLeaders reduce the potential negative impact of heuristics by moving from the individual to the collective. While it is difficult to control our own intuition, we can apply rational thought to detect others’ faulty intuition and improve their decision-making.  (Kahneman, D. et. al. 2011)

NeuroLeaders neutralize or at least reduce negative heuristics by identifying biases among the team and organization relevant to the decision-making process.  Look to the collective wisdom of the system – beyond the brainy individuals.

NeuroLeaders: Think like an ant.

Choi, C., 2009 Mindless Collectives Better at Rational Decision-Making Than Brainy Individuals, www.scientificamerican.com, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mindless-collectives-rational-decision-making  Viewed May 22, 2011

Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., Sibony, O. 2011 Before you Make that Big Decision Harvard Business Review, Boston, MA

Masicampo, E.J., and Baumeister, R.F., Schmeichel, B.J., Twenge, J.M., Nelson, N.M., Tice D.M. (2008) “Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited resource account of decision-making, self-regulation and active initiative.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Masicampo, E., Baumeister, R. (2008) Toward a Physiology of Dual-Process Reasoning and Judgement, Florida State University, Association for Psychological Science

Rock, D. 2009 Your Brain at Work, Harper Collins, NY

Venkatraman, V., Payne, J., Bettman, J., Luce, M., Huettel, S. (2009) Separate Neural Mechanisms Underlie Choices and Strategic Preferences in Risky Decision Making, Duke University Medical Center, NC

Wray, H. (2010) On Second Thought: Outsmarting Your Mind’s Hard-Wired Habits, Crown, a division of Random House