Professional Coaching for Exceptional Results

“Carla is extremely gifted as a coach, and I can honestly say that the process has changed my life for the better. “ — Patty Remes, President, Owner, Electric Jet Interactive LLC

Read More

News & Views

NeuroLeaders Focus on Progress, Growth and Acceptance

November 24th, 2011

pro·mo·tion n. 1. The act of promoting or the fact of being promoted; advancement 2. encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something (Dictionary, 2011)

Getting promoted is a good thing right?  But isn’t greater responsibility, title envy, and higher stakes more stressful?  Considering the brain’s organizing principle to minimize danger and maximize reward, do individuals who accept a promotion reconcile potential dangers with the promise of greater rewards such as money and prestige? (Gordon, 2009) How do NeuroLeaders manage the complexities of status?

A recent report found that the more status a worker has the less emotion management the worker performs. (Sloan, 2008)  This finding is consistent with literature that suggests higher status workers are freer than lower status workers in their emotional expression in the workplace. (Lively, 2000)  Are higher status workers more emotionally expressive due to a sense of insecurity and related stress?  Or are they more confident with emotional expression because of their status?

 Another study suggests that in performance-based, competitive, dynamic hierarchies, promotions to dominant positions may come with increased threats to status, from others who had wanted or may continue to compete for those titles.  The research asserts that highest status, dominant positions experience the greatest stress.  Though in more stable, less competitive hierarchies, subordinate positions reported greater stress, perhaps due to a sense of lower autonomy and lack of control over the environment. 

A fMRI study shows that when viewing a more superior player in either a dynamic or stable hierarchy, brain activity is significantly greater in the occipital/parietal cortex, ventral striatum and parahippocampal cortex implicating these areas in the neural encoding of hierarchical rank In particular, the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex DLPFC has been shown to play a role in making interpersonal judgments such as the assessment of status.   Not surprisingly, the amygdala is triggered during hierarchical challenge.  (Zink et al., 2008) 

From dynamic to stable hierarchies – to flat organizations –NeuroLeaders accept the responsibility to manage the potential threats that status can trigger for themselves and others.  When it comes to promotions, NeuroLeaders focus on progress, growth and acceptance to calm the limbic circuit and maintain a zone of peak performance.

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

LIVELY, K. J. 2000. Reciprocal Emotion Management: Working Together to Maintain Stratification in Private Law Firms. Work and Occupations, 27, 32-63.

SLOAN, M. 2008. Emotion Management and Workplace Status: Consequences for Well-being. Int. J. Work Organization and Emotion, 2, 236-255.

ZINK, C., TONG, Y., CHEN, Q., BASSETT, D., STEIN, J. & MEYER-LINDENBERG, A. 2008. Know Your Place: Neural Processing of Social Hierarchy in Humans. Neuron, 58, 273-278.

Posted in Emotional Intelligence, Industry News, Professional Coaching

SCARF: A Lesson for Young NeuroLeaders?

November 20th, 2011

While an image of a future NeuroLeader safe, and happily wrapped in her SCARF is heartening, the reality is that 1 in 4 will be a victim of bullying by the time they are in middle school and 1 in 5 when they get into the workplace.  (Grasz, 2011)  The report defined bullying as hitting, name-calling, threatening, spreading rumors and social exclusion.  Every 7 seconds a child is bullied and 85% of the time there is no intervention. ((NICHD), 2001)

Perhaps the historical lack of attention stems from the misguided, age-old refrain, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”  Neuroscientific findings now indicate that, in fact, words can hurt, moreover, the social pain from bullying can be far more enduring.  Current research shows that the brain’s social and physical pain circuits have much in common leading scientists to recommend that we extend the same reality to social pain that we have accorded to physical pain. (Lieberman and Eisenberger, 2008)

Research on social exclusion shows that individuals who were excluded from a game reported feeling more social pain and showed greater activity in their dorsal anterior cingulated cortex (dACC).  In contrast, individuals who reported feeling less social pain showed greater activity in the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (RVLPFC), a brain region associated with pain regulation. (Williams et al., 2000) 

Neuroscience is discovering that whether on the playground or in the boardroom, bullying exacts real social pain; pain that impairs thinking, performance and one’s health.  It hurts.  The SCARF model, which supports awareness of key social pain points: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness, is a practical tool that offers individuals the opportunity to successfully manage these infringements and shift from pain to the sunny side of pleasure.(Rock, 2008)

Knowing what we know now about the real pain of bullying, perhaps NeuroLeaders will enfold a NeuroLeader of tomorrow in a warm, soft, self-protective SCARF.

(NICHD), N. I. O. C. H. A. H. D. 2001. Bullying Statistics [Online]. NICHD. Available: http://www.martialartsforpeace.com/pages/bullyingstatistics.html [Accessed October 8, 2011.

GRASZ, J. 2011. One-in-Four Workers Have Felt Bullied in the Workplace, CareerBuilder Study Finds [Online]. CareerBuilder.com. Available: http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=pr632&sd=4%2F20%2F2011&ed=4%2F20%2F2099 [Accessed Oct. 8, 2011 2011].

LIEBERMAN, M. & EISENBERGER, N. 2008. The pains and pleasures of social life: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, 38-43.

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

WILLIAMS, K., CHEUNG, C. & CHOI, W. 2000. Cyberostracism:  Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762.

Posted in Emotional Intelligence, Industry News, Mindfulness, NeuroLeadership

Brain-stellations: NeuroLeaders Create Meaningful Connections

November 8th, 2011

Ancient cultures looked to the stars to discover patterns that might bring certainty and a sense of connection to something greater than themselves.  Recent advances in brain science have characterized the brain as a pattern-making device that feels rewarded when it makes connections.    Medical reports in the popular media point to the healthy aspects of having social connections.  A 2004 Gallup Poll reports that on average, Americans have nine “close” friends.  (Carroll, 2004)  While many sources point to 9 as an average number of “core” friends, on the social networking site, Facebook, people have an average of 130 friends.  (facebook, 2011)  LinkedIn, the social networking site for business, qualifies connections by degrees of separation, 1st-degree, 2nd-degree, and 3rd-degree. 
The implied promise being that all of us are only degrees away from connecting with any other person on earth.  Our brains find that enticing.

Perhaps taking the social experience “online” represents another evolutionary step in humankinds’ search for meaningful connection.  Why is it so important for leaders to understand the neural drivers for connectedness within organizations? NeuroLeaders look to the brain for astral guidance. 

The overarching, organizing principle of the brain, to minimize danger and maximize reward, (Gordon, 2009) simply applied to connectedness, explains how being dis-connected can feel threatening, and trigger the X-System.  Brain-based leaders consider the X- and C-Systems at play within their organizations. (Lieberman, 2011)

The X-System (reflexive) produces our ongoing experience of reality (Lieberman et al., 2011). As the amygdala and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) scan and detect threats in the environment, the basal ganglia automatically, habitually, responds. 

An organization’s X-System is triggered during a normal workday as individuals experience “social pinches” when they are not included or someone just looks at them the “wrong” way.  The X-System generates an “away” brain state as individuals experience the reality of social pain.  Getting stuck in the X-System can lead to a decrease in morale, lower productivity, higher cortisol levels and a downward spiral of negativity. (Fredrickson, 2009) 

The ACC not only identifies a problem in the X-System it takes control away and recruits the C-System (reflective). The ACC is seen as the alarm system and the prefrontal cortex, the lord of the manor.  (Lieberman et al., 2011) Specifically, the subjects of the C-System include the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) and the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) who step in to assert control, set goals, and restore order to reduce threat.  A sense of autonomy and certainty feels rewarding, creates a “toward” response and an improved sense of engagement.   Connecting with others arouses the brain’s reward system.

NeuroLeaders look beyond the average 9 “core” friends and 150 facebook connections to the macro- social brain of their organizations.  NeuroLeaders focus on shared vision, purpose, inclusion and fairness to achieve a rewarding environment of connectedness and high performance.

When in doubt, they look to the stars…

(NICHD), N. I. O. C. H. A. H. D. 2001. Bullying Statistics [Online]. NICHD. Available: http://www.martialartsforpeace.com/pages/bullyingstatistics.html [Accessed October 8, 2011.

CARROLL, J. 2004. Americans Satisfied with Number of Friends, Closeness of Friendships [Online]. Gallup. Available: http://www.gallup.com/poll/10891/americans-satisfied-number-friends-closeness-friendships.aspx [Accessed Oct. 2, 2011 2011].

DICTIONARY, F. 2011. Promotion [Online]. The Free Dictionary. Available: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/promotion [Accessed Oct. 15, 2011 2011].

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

FACEBOOK. 2011. facebook statistics [Online]. facebook. Available: http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics [Accessed Oct. 2, 2011 2011].

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.

GRASZ, J. 2011. One-in-Four Workers Have Felt Bullied in the Workplace, CareerBuilder Study Finds [Online]. CareerBuilder.com. Available: http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=pr632&sd=4%2F20%2F2011&ed=4%2F20%2F2099 [Accessed Oct. 8, 2011 2011].

HSU, M., BHATT, M., ADOLPHS, R., TRANEL, D. & CAMERER, C. 2005. Neural Systems Responding to Degrees of Uncertainty in Human Decision-Making. Science, 310.

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

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

LIEBERMAN, M. & EISENBERGER, N. 2008. The pains and pleasures of social life: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, 38-43.

LIEBERMAN, M., GAUNT, R., GILBERT, D. & TROPE, Y. 2011. Reflection and Reflexion: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach to Attributional Inference. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

LIVELY, K. J. 2000. Reciprocal Emotion Management: Working Together to Maintain Stratification in Private Law Firms. Work and Occupations, 27, 32-63.

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.

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

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

SETTY, R. 2008. In search of certainty… Rajesh Setty [Online]. Available from: http://www.rajeshsetty.com/2008/07/08/in-search-of-certainty/ [Accessed Oct. 21, 2011 2011].

SHERMER, M. 2011. Financial Flimflam: Why Economic Experts Predictions Fail [Online]. Scientific American. Available: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=financial-flimflam [Accessed Oct. 21, 2011 2011].

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.

SLOAN, M. 2008. Emotion Management and Workplace Status: Consequences for Well-being. Int. J. Work Organization and Emotion, 2, 236-255.

SOLUTIONS, H. 2010. Three Buckets of Engagement. Monster Thinking.

TABIBNIA, G., SATPUTE, A. & LIEBERMAN, M. 2008. The Sunny Side of Fairness: Preference for Fairness Activates Reward Circuitry (and Disregarding Unfairness Activates Self-Control Circuitry). Psychological Science, 19, 339-347.

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

WILLIAMS, K., CHEUNG, C. & CHOI, W. 2000. Cyberostracism:  Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762.

ZINK, C., TONG, Y., CHEN, Q., BASSETT, D., STEIN, J. & MEYER-LINDENBERG, A. 2008. Know Your Place: Neural Processing of Social Hierarchy in Humans. Neuron, 58, 273-278.

Posted in Emotional Intelligence, Industry News, NeuroLeadership

NeuroLeaders & Mind-flow-ness

October 2nd, 2011

Stress-related mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety, are considered the fastest-growing, work-related disease in the U.S.  Stress isn’t a tangible health risk such as alcohol or drugs, it is the emotional and physical strain caused by our response to pressure from the outside world. (Slowik, 2011)  NeuroLeaders leverage mindfulness techniques to decrease perceived stress and increase positivity, creativity and performance in themselves and others.

While various levels of temporary stress are expected and can be beneficial to productivity; chronic stress, called allostatic load, has negative physical and psychological impacts including impaired immunity, atherosclerosis and atrophy of nerve cells in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex that can impair memory and thinking.

In the case of chronic stress, the phenomenon of neuroplasticity, the mind’s capacity to sculpt the brain, usually thought of in a positive sense, can be negative.  Continuous stress sustains activation of the amygdala, that modulates fear response, and actually increases its anatomical size making it hyper-reactive to less stimulation.  (Hassed, 2011)  The combined, cumulative effect of a hyper-limbic system and brain cell atrophy, reduces leaders’ composure, positivity and ability to think openly.  Mindfulness can protect the brain from these deleterious effects.

Mindfulness, the mental discipline of training our attention, is about opening oneself to the present (direct experience) and respectfully setting aside nonproductive background thoughts (the narrative circuit).  (Rock, 2009)  Neuroplasticity works in the brain’s favor here with studies showing thicker cortical regions among long-term meditators pointing to meditation as a neuroprotective practice that might reduce cognitive decline associated with aging. (Pagnoni and Cekic, 2007)

Mindful leaders self-monitor to detect embedded default thinking ‘structures’ such as confirmation or anchoring biases that obstruct present, direct experience.  Similarly, tightly structured organizations that rest on precedent or hyper-focus on highly-defined process toward concrete goals might also risk a type of default mindlessness.  Less imposing, looser structures with “lighthouse” goals might be more likely to help leaders and their organizations discover their mind-flow or zone of peak performance.

Mindfulness is a mission critical competency for NeuroLeaders and meditation is their tool of choice.  NeuroLeaders achieve mind-flow-ness to protect the holistic health of themselves, others and the systems in which they interact.

HASSED, C. 2011. Mindfulness: why attention matters

PAGNONI, G. & CEKIC, M. 2007. Age Effects on Gray Matter Volume and Attentional Performance in Zen Meditation. Neurology of Aging.

ROCK, D. 2009. Your Brain at Work, New York, HarperCollins.

SLOWIK, G. 2011. What is Stress? [Online]. ehealthMD. Available: http://ehealthmd.com/content/what-stress [Accessed August 28 2011].

Posted in Emotional Intelligence, Mindfulness, NeuroLeadership, Professional Coaching

NeuroLeaders: Reappraisal = Responsibility

August 15th, 2011

Last week President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 that raised the nation’s debt ceiling, diverted government default and cut $2.4 trillion of government spending.  Prolonged negotiations surrounding the new bill were described as angry, upsetting and contentious.  The president assigned meaning to the deal using both positive and negative reappraisal saying that it was an “important first step” toward fiscal responsibility, yet the “manufactured crisis” had damaged the U.S. economy.  There is significant power in the president’s use of reappraisal and  – power requires responsibility.  This is especially important for leaders who influence the course of their business or, in the case of the president, a country.

How does a neurological understanding help NeuroLeaders apply the power of reappraisal?

Studies have shown that positive reappraisal, or reformulating the meaning of a situation (creating a new cognitive map), is one of the most effective strategies for modifying negative emotions and shifting into a more beneficial state of positivity. Research by Philippe Goldin shows reappraisal, or rewiring, increases prefrontal cortex response while decreasing negative emotional experience, amygdala and insular response. (Goldin et al., 2008)

Reappraisal seems to be a type of self-directed neuroplasticity.  As individuals identify a cognitive map (appraise) and choose to rewire that map (reappraise) they generate more positive energy and sense of reward, in essence, sculpting their brains to shape their experience.  Though, this is difficult and energy intensive because lots of neurons in the brain are being reconfigured into new patterns to represent the construction of new meaning to a situation.  Professional neuro-coaches can partner with individuals to facilitate and support this process.

So, back to the president’s positive and negative reappraisals of the Budget Control Act of 2011.  Yes, reappraisal goes both ways.  (Ochsner, 2008)Which reappraisal is more brain-friendly?

NeuroLeaders understand the power of reappraisal.  With power comes responsibility. NeuroLeaders are mindful of their own appraisals and how they influence others’.  Responsible use of reappraisal has the power to improve thinking, decision-making, collaboration and overall well-being.  Use it wisely.

GOLDIN, P., MCRAE, K., RAMEL, W. & GROSS, J. 2008. The Neural Bases of Emotion Regulation: Reappraisal and Suppression of Negative Emotion. Society of Biological Psychiatry, 577-586.

OCHSNER, K. 2008. Staying Cool Under Pressure: Insights from Social Cognitive Neuroscience and Their Implications for Self and Society. NeuroLeadership Journal.

Posted in Uncategorized

NeuroLeaders: To Eat or Not to Eat the Marshmallow. Is that the question?

August 10th, 2011

Famous research, nicknamed The Marshmallow Study, found enduring individual differences in self-control as early as the preschool years. Four-year-old children who resisted the immediate temptation of eating a marshmallow with the goal of getting another just minutes later, achieved higher scholastic performance and coped better with frustration and stress later in life. (Mischel et al., 1989)This study, conducted just prior to the Decade of the Brain, the 90s, seemed to suggest a foundational, neurological set-point for individuals.  While subsequent fMRI imaging may have softened the predictive conclusions of this study, related discoveries have raised more questions surrounding the neurological underpinnings of inhibition and its impacts.

It seems inhibition, an inner impediment to free activity, or expression, may be a two-edged sword.  Either, according to the Marshmallow Study, it can be predictive of superior coping, cognition and stress management or, as neuroscience suggests, have down stream negative side effects.  Take, for instance, the headache.

A World Health Organization report described migraine as one of the four most disabling chronic medical disorders and cost the U.S. economy $17 billion a year. An Armed Forces Health report, noted male soldiers’ incidence rates of migraine increased nearly 60 percent from 2002 to 2007, a period of continuous U.S. Army combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was theorized that the increased number of headaches might be connected to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.  (Kennedy, 2008)

Post Decade of the Brain, the root of migraine is now thought to arise from the brain stem.  In particular, positron-emission tomography has revealed activity in the locus coeruleus, raphe nucleus and periaqueductal gray during and after migraine.

These brain stem areas receive input from the limbic cortex which affects the functioning of the rest of the cortex, pointing to an association between migraine and depression and anxiety disorders.(Dodick and Gargus, 2008)

In a more recent study of the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) individuals with greater resting activity in the right-posterior DLPFC rated themselves as more behaviorally inhibited. In the face of threat, behaviorally inhibited individuals are prone to generate greater stress and anxiety.   This greater susceptibility could arise from dysfunctional anxiety regulation, increased vigilance or, difficulties learning to resolve uncertainty. (Shackman et al., 2009)

While recent brain science is revealing the neurological underpinnings of inhibition, evolving long held assumptions and provoking thought, it is also helping NeuroLeaders to reconsider the Marshmallow experiment and maybe take a more balanced approach…just a nibble?

DODICK, D. W. & GARGUS, J. J. 2008. Why Migraines Strike; Biologists finally are unraveling the medical mysteries of migraine, from aura to pain. Scientific American.

KENNEDY, K. 2008. Migraines on the Rise Across All Services [Online]. Gannet Company. Available: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/07/military_migraineheadaches_072508w/ [Accessed July 29, 2011 2011].

MISCHEL, W., SHODA, Y. & RODRIGUEZ, M. 1989. Delay of Gratification in Children. Science, 244, 933-938.

SHACKMAN, A., MCMENAMIN, B., MAXWELL, J., GREISCHAR, L. & DAVIDSON, R. 2009. Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortical Activity and Behavioral Inhibition. Psychological Science.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Emotional Intelligence, Industry News, NeuroLeadership, Professional Coaching

NeuroLeaders: What Do You Expect?

August 8th, 2011

If you Google “expectations for the U.S. economy” you will receive approximately 42,700,000 results. Expectations are important. Expectations, whether met or unmet, influence our experience, individually and collectively, moment by moment. A dramatic example of this came late Friday, August 5th, when Standard & Poor’s rating firm downgraded the U.S. Treasury Debt for the first time in 70 years. The current explanation points to myriad examples of unmet expectations (that were not clear to begin with).  Standard & Poor’s expectations were unmet and their decision itself was unexpected – the media is now reporting the consequent impacts.  How can a neuro- understanding help NeuroLeaders navigate the perils of expectations?

Overall, the placebo effect appears to be a helpful, yet still mysterious, model to understand how expectancy, interacts with different neuronal systems. In Latin, placebo means “I shall please,” which is suggestive of a positive expectation. Alternatively, the nocebo effect, Latin nocere, “to do harm”, occurs when the suggestion of a negative effect of an intervention leads an actual negative outcome.  (Cloud, 2009)

One hypothesis is that placebo effects are driven by executive attention whereby the dorsal and ventral PFC is activated by cognitive demands for appraisals of safety and use of self-distraction strategies. Alternatively, effective placebo treatment may involve active reevaluation of the significance of pain, which engages OFC and lateral prefrontal systems in the creation of short-term context that biases affective processing. (Benedetti et al., 2005)

As doctors carefully manage their patients’ expectations for pain, how do NeuroLeaders manage their organizations’ expectations for “pain”?

NeuroLeaders look to one of the key organizing principles of the brain: to minimize danger and maximize reward. (Gordon, 2009) If a NeuroLeader’s expectations are met or are a pleasant surprise, the brain’s reward circuits are triggered resulting in a positive experience. If expectations are not met, the anterior cingulate cortex will activate an error response that can trigger limbic activity and generate feelings of stress and danger. NeuroLeaders set just the “right” level of expectations to maximize reward.

Back to Standard & Poor’s decision, perhaps the question to ask now is, “What did we expect?”

BENEDETTI, F., MAYBER, H., WAGER, T., STOHLER, C. & ZUBIETA, J.-K. 2005. Neurobiological Mechanisms of the Placebo Effect. The Journal of Neuroscience.

CLOUD, J. 2009. The Flip Side of Placebos: The Nocebo Effect [Online]. Time Magazine: Health. Available: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1931727,00.html [Accessed August 8, 2011 2011].

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

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Emotional Intelligence, Industry News, NeuroLeadership, Professional Coaching

NeuroLeaders Know That….Staying Cool Under Pressure Can Make Them Hot Under the Collar

August 5th, 2011

NeuroLeaders know that…
staying cool under pressure,
can make them hot under the collar

According to the 2010 Stress in America report the majority of Americans are living with moderate (4 – 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means you have little or no stress and 10 means you have a great deal of stress) or high (8 – 10 on a scale of 1 to 10) levels of stress.   The most common physical symptoms of stress reported were irritability (45 percent), fatigue (41 percent) and lack of energy or motivation (38 percent). (Anderson et al., 2010) These symptoms can lead to system-wide, organizational consequences such as overall loss of morale, job dissatisfaction, disengagement, decreased performance and increased turnover.

Yet, as Marcus Aurelius noted almost two Millennia ago, humans have an extraordinary capacity to regulate emotions.   And, it is these regulatory efforts that can determine to a great extent, the impact stress will have on the mental and physical well-being of individuals and the systems in which they interact. (Gross and Ochsner, 2005) As the Stress in America study reports, regulatory failure exacts a severe toll and, can even contributes to the genesis and symptomatology of many psychiatric disorders. (Wagner et al., 2008) How is neuroscience informing a functional, and obviously critical, architecture for successful emotional regulation?

In the past several years, brain-based models of emotion regulation have established the prefrontal cortex (PFC) as a key player in the cognitive regulation of emotion. Numerous fMRI studies have reported increased activity in the ventrolateral, dorsolateral, and dorsomedial prefrontal cortices (vlPFC, dlPFC, and dmPFC, respectively) when participants deploy cognitive strategies that reduce negative emotional experience. Two strategies, in particular, that have attracted more interest are labeling and, reappraisal, which involves the reinterpretation of the meaning of affective stimuli to alter their emotional impact. (Wagner et al., 2008)

Interestingly, emotional suppression is not an emotional regulation strategy. In fact, the deleterious affect of one’s emotional suppression has been compared to second-hand smoke. Leaders who use suppression to ‘stay cool under pressure’ endanger themselves and others. James Gross, professor at Stanford University, found that when individuals suppressed the expression of negative emotions, the observers’ blood pressure went up because they were expecting to see an emotion and, instead saw nothing. Suppression makes other people uncomfortable and has an unhealthy impact. As for the suppressors, even though they might have appeared “cool”, in fact, they were ‘hot’, many times with more limbic arousal than if they had not tried to suppress their feelings.

So how do NeuroLeaders successfully regulate their emotions? Clearly we are not talking about trying not to feel. And, most would agree that it isn’t productive for leaders to have total limbic meltdowns at their workplaces. The two strategies previously noted seem most encouraging and applicable for NeuroLeaders: labeling and reappraisal.

A leading expert on the seesaw relationship between the PFC and the limbic system is UCLA professor, Mathew Lieberman. His 2005 study found that when participants tried to label pictures of angry, scared or happy-looking faces with the appropriate emotion instead of matching the pictures with other pictures expressing similar emotions, amygdala activity was reduced and the right vlPFC was activated. Labeling of emotions and feelings appears to engage cortical regions and reduce limbic response. (Rock, 2009)

Reappraisal, changing the meaning of an event, is thought to be achieved via interactions between PFC regions and subcortical networks related to emotional responding.  This mediation hypothesis purports that the PFC influences subcortical systems implicated in affective appraisal which in turn impact reported emotional experience to reduce negative emotion. Alternatively, there is a direct pathway hypothesis that suggests reappraisal is directly related to cortical activity and minimally impacts the evolutionarily older subcortical systems. Understanding the difference between these two, mediation and direct matters because it might beg the question related to surface (suppression-style) or a deeper reappraisal process that involves subcortical systems. (Wagner et al., 2008)

A 2002 study compared two perspectives of emotional labor as predictors of burnout 1) surface acting, job-focused, surface-level emotional labor – faking, putting on a mask, and 2) deep acting, perceiving the demand to display positive emotions and using deep-level regulation, changing internal feeling states. These perspectives seem to have some link to the mediation and direct pathway hypotheses. The study found that using deep-level regulation heightened the sense of personal efficacy and positive effect while surface-level emotional labor predicted depersonalization and emotional exhaustion (burnout). (Brotheridge and Grandey, 2002)

While these seem to be simplistic, generalized explanations of emotional regulation given the brain’s very complex, highly connected system, current findings challenge science to continue the study of how particular types of cognitive operations can influence particular appraisal processes and channels of emotional response. (Gross and Ochsner, 2005)

Using the following guidelines for Surface Acting and Deep Acting from the Brotheridge and Grandey study, NeuroLeaders can take a quick self-assessment on where they believe they fall on the Surface versus Deep acting levels as it relates to successful emotional regulation. This quick tool will help leaders determine how they might use the reappraisal and labeling strategies to affect successful emotional regulation for optimal performance and well-being, for themselves and others. (Fig. 1)

Maybe it isn’t about being ‘cool’ or ‘hot’ but rather… just being ‘warm.’

NeuroLeader Self-Assessment Development Tool for Successful Emotional Regulation
Surface Acting

1-10
1=not at all
10=absolutely

Deep Acting

1-10
1=not at all
10=absolutely
Resist expressing my true feelings.

Make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need to display to others.

Pretend to have emotions that I don’t really have.

Try to actually experience the emotions that I must show.
    
 
Hide my true feelings about a situation.

Really try to feel the emotions I have to show as part of my job.

Mindfully notice my emotions and utilize the labeling strategy to regulate my limbic response

Mindfully reappraise the situation to create a more positive interpretation and mitigate a negative limbic response

Fig. 1 Chart created by ROI Executive Coaching & Consulting based on surface acting and deep acting definitions in the 2002 Brotheridge and Grandey study.

ANDERSON, N., NORDAL, K., BRECKLER, S., BALLARD, D., BUFKA, L., BOSSOLO, L., BETHUNE, S., BROWNAWELL, A. & KELLEY, K. 2010. Stress in America Findings. American Psychology Association.

BROTHERIDGE, C. & GRANDEY, A. 2002. Emotional Labor and Burnout: Comparing Two Perspectives of “People Work”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17-39.

GROSS, J. J. & OCHSNER, K. N. 2005. The Cognitive Control of Emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9.

ROCK, D. 2009. Your Brain at Work, New York, HarperCollins.

WAGNER, T. D., DAVIDSON, M. L., HUGHES, B. L., LINGQUIST, M. A. & OCHSNER, K. N. 2008. Prefrontal-Subcortical Pathways Mediating Successful Emotion Regulation. NEURON. Elsevier Inc.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Emotional Intelligence, Industry News, NeuroLeadership

NeuroLeaders Amygdala: Friend or Foe?

July 21st, 2011

Anxiety, stress, and neurotic disorder cases involved higher percentages of long-term work loss, a median of 25 days away from work, compared with a median of 6 for all nonfatal injury and illness cases. (CDC 2001).  While many experts search for external explanations for these health concerns, NeuroLeaders look inside.  They know their amygdala are at the heart of the issue.

Notoriously labeled as a “hijacker”, the amygdala is well known for its ability to process perceived threat and take over the brain, holding it hostage until the danger dissipates.  Though, NeuroLeaders are adept at befriending this hijacker to release their brains and enable peak performance.  How does one go about making a friend?  First you need to get to know them….

The amygdala works with the insula, and anterior cingulate as the warning center of the brain.  When these areas are active individuals get a very uncomfortable sensation that something is wrong and they react. For example, co-workers’ amygdalae can be triggered by their brain’s faulty interpretation of each others’ comments and behaviors. These types of thoughts are referred to as Deceptive Brain Messages:  Any inaccurate thought or desire that takes you away from your true goals, your true self and causes stress. (Schwartz, J., Gladding, R. 2011)

When the amygdala is activated by a deceptive brain message, the basal ganglia, responsible for automatic thoughts and actions, kicks in.  This habitual response can set into motion a vicious cycle of responding in a habitually negative, non-productive way.  Stress, anxiety and neurotic disorders build and workers may become less productive or absent.

NeuroLeaders understand and appreciate the skittish nature of their friend, the amygdala. (Rock, D. 2009) They are not its “follower”, they remain leaders.  They critically assess their old friend’s potentially, but not intentionally, deceptive messages.  They relabel and refocus the input to align with their values and attain their goals. So NeuroLeaders stay friends with their amygdalae and stay at work.

Center for Disease Control Worker Health Chart Book [www.bls.gov/iif/oshcdnew.htm] Viewed July 2, 2011,  http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-146/detail/keyworddetail.asp@kwid146.htm

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

ScienceDaily.com Viewed July 2, 2011, http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/amygdala.htm

Schwartz, J., Gladding, R., 2011 You Are Not Your Brain, Penguin Group, NY

Posted in Emotional Intelligence, Mindfulness, NeuroLeadership, Professional Coaching

NeuroLeaders: There is Nothing to Fear but the Brain Itself

July 17th, 2011

One out of four people will suffer a brain instability in their lifetime. To what extent is this explained in evolutionary terms?  The human brain has continued to evolve, actually trebling in size. (Gordon, 2009)  Though the rate of societal evolution has egregiously outpaced biological evolution – which typically happens over thousands to millions of years. (Gordon, 2009)

Perhaps it is this developmental time lag that is threatening the stability our collective brains.  Predictions that mental illnesses will increase in the future makes one wonder if the gap between advancements of our modern society and our primitive brains will become increasingly difficult to reconcile.

Current research is helping us to understand the nonadaptive pitfalls of our old brains and offers a basis for hope.  Knowing what we know now, how can NeuroLeaders expedite the biological evolution of their brains for peak performance and overall stability?

When NeuroLeaders’ primitive brains perceive threats, they react physiologically in order to maintain homeostasis.  This process, called “allostasis”, means “maintaining stability through change” and involves the production or release of adrenaline and glucocortoicoids.  These neurotransmitters are usually released during a discrete period of activation and then shut off.  “Allostatic load” refers to the cost of the overuse of the system and/or its failure to shut off – which happens with chronic stress. (McEwen, 2000)

Current studies might be suggesting that our primitive brains are having an increasingly difficult time discerning threats in our modern world and consequently getting stuck in overdrive or simply not shutting off.(Bremner, 2004)  Research on allostatic load points to atrophy of dendrites and inhibition of neurogenesis leading to cognitive decline, memory loss, and depression which can be a precusor to other mental illnesses. (Gordon, 2009)

Studies have shown these negative effects to be reversible only if the stress is terminated after a number of weeks. (McEwen, 2000)  The critical message is to address the stress.

NeuroLeaders consciously work to extinguish the associations between outdated threat stimuli and stress responses to avoid potential instability and other negative consequences.  (Schiller et al., 2009)

To put it in evolutionary terms, perhaps extinction is the answer.

#####

BREMNER, D. 2004. Does Stress Damage the Brain?  Understanding Trauma-related Disorders from a Mind-Body Perspective. Directions in Psychiatry, 24.

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

MCEWEN, B. 2000. Allostasis, Allostatic Load, and the Aging Nervous System: Role of Excitatory Amino Acids and Excitotoxicity. Neurochemical Research, 25, 1219-1231.

SCHILLER, D., MONFILS, M.-H., RAIO, C. M., JOHNSON, D. C., LEDOUX, J. E. & PHELPS, E. A. 2009. Preventing the Return of Fear in Humans using Reconsolidation Update Mechanisms. Nature. New York: Macmillan Publishers.

Posted in Emotional Intelligence, Industry News, NeuroLeadership, Professional Coaching

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »