What is the best way to get employees and teams to succeed?  Some executives and managers praise, encourage, let people work at their own pace and time, let them work in their own ways, and from time to time make gentle suggestions for improvement.

Others  say this is “soft,” “touchy-feely”. They direct people firmly, ride them, tell them exactly what to do, chastise or punish errors or falling behind, compare people unfavorably with colleagues, or use favoritism as carrot-and-stick. Some use these techniques without realizing they are doing it.

Is the first approach soft? Does the second one work?

What we now know about the brain tells us a lot about both approaches. The brain is hard-wired to turn off creativity and intuition if the brain senses danger of any kind. Scientific studies tell us the firm, chastising, criticizing management approach signals danger. Just a hint of disapproval turns off most of the brain. Only a small sliver still thinks. That sliver can only function in a tight box of linear  thoughts    (a àbàc). It’s not very productive.

Scientific studies show the first method is highly effective. Praise, encouragement, freedom to work how you wish, and gentle suggestions actually work. They work well. This approach turns on nerve cells and circuits in the brain that inspire individuals and teams to do their best.

Why? Dr. David Rock reviewed the science in The Neuroleadership Journal 1 (2008).  He summed up influences on traits he calls “SCARF”: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. Increasing these five traits increases productivity by increasing comfort,  creativity, and intuition. Going against one of the traits, just one, any one, shuts down effectiveness and productivity. They shut down in a fraction of a second; and it takes hard work over a long time to get effectiveness and productivity back.

Status for Rock means social status, intellectual status, or a personal sense of honor and worth within a group, a department, an organization, or a company.

Certainty means the ability to know from moment to moment how actions will influence efforts. The efforts may be to get a effect one wants or to avoid errors. It is a subconscious state the brain is in when planning or carrying out complex tasks. 

Autonomy means being free to choose between possibilities. It gives a person or a group a sense of being in control.

Relatedness means feeling part of a group of friends. Lack of relatedness is what someone feels when (s)he is outside a clique or has to face an enemy.

Fairness means feeling that authorities are treating you just as they are treating others: no prejudices, no insiders, no favoritism.

All of us feel these traits. Reports feel these traits. They feel when the traits aren’t there. You as a report or subordinate feel these traits and their absence. You as a manager probably don’t. A manager who is abrupt or uses a carrot-and-stick may not intend to undercut the SCARF traits. (S)he may not recognize (s)he is undercutting anything. What counts is how the reports feel. How reports feel determines their effectiveness and productivity.

What is going on in the brain? Most of the brain deals with subconscious, reflex actions. A critical part of the brain are the nerve cells and connections that trigger reflexes to keep us out of danger.  They make sure we avoid enemies or threats. This is survival. It is a basic need. It is much stronger than a second, opposite, reflex action. The latter deals with gratification. Gratification is wanting to be with people we love and things we love, wanting to stay with a supportive group, enjoying what we are doing, getting rewards.

The parts of the brain that deal with survival are largely toward the front surface of the brain, low down on the front sides, and deep the front of the brain.

Reflexes act and work in a few thousands of a second. The subconscious brain treats anything that threatens a SCARF trait as  a danger or a threat. Danger threatens survival.  Our need to survive is much stronger than our wish to be gratified with pleasant things or rewards. Threats of all kinds signal a nucleus, or collection of nerve cells, deep in the brain. When these cells perceive a threat, they act instantly to put the rest of the brain into “fight-or-flight” mode. Emotions switch to fear and anger.  Bad memories come up, memories of fearful events and things that made us angry. Another part of the brain sends signals of disgust and nausea. The intuitive functions of the brain shut down. The only thinking part of the brain that is active is a thin layer of the outer surface up in front. This layer works only with learned, linear, logical behaviors; nothing else. All of this is the survival  mode.

You can’t avoid the survival mode. When we are trying to survive we cannot deal with non-linear problems.  We cannot be creative. We cannot think out of the box.  We cannot be kind to others, we cannot work out new ways of doing things, and we cannot use intuition. Survival is every man for himself. Teamwork and social abilities disappear. Managers and executives beware: the more often people perceive threats to survival  at their workplace, the worse the consequences. Behavior gets worse. Efficiency and productivity go down. It takes longer and longer to restore people’s brains to a neutral state, let alone an aligned, creative state.

You may want to point out exceptions, like firefighters, soldiers, emergency room doctors and nurses: people trained to deal with emergencies and disasters. These highly-trained people are actually hyper-focused when they are in survival mode that concerns their expertise. In this survival mode, they use linear logic instead of creativity. They are not exceptions. They’ve just been trained in a lot of specific linear processes the rest of us don’t know.

I only know one protection from automatic fright-or-flight. It is to get trained in technologies of consciousness that include skills to block negative emotional responses and to discreate the unpleasant emotions that are stirred up. How to do it is beyond the scope of this white paper.

What we know about the brain gives a clear message to executives, managers, organizations and companies. Encourage the SCARF traits. 1) Treat employees, staff, colleagues, and teams so they feel they are valued. 2) Treat them so  they are certain that whatever they try will be appreciated whether it succeeds or fails. 3) Treat them so they know they can make their own decisions about what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. 4) Make them feel they are regarded as valuable members of an organization in which superiors, peers, and people who report to them are friends not rivals.  5) Make sure no-one supervising them plays favorites.

Success in executive coaching and success in organizational development follow these rules.  For example, in his book,  “What Got You Here Won’t Get You There”, executive coach Marshall Goldsmith considers 20 types of flaws in interpersonal behavior that damage relations in a company.  Let me assign the flaws to SCARF categories. I don’t want to minimize the deep and broad analysis Goldsmith gives. I merely want to show that there are links between Goldsmith’s approach and Rock’s.

Problems with status seem to underlie Goldsmith’s flaws of needing to win too much, needing to add too much value, needing to tell the world how smart we are, needing to make excuses, needing to cling to the past to deflect blame, refusing to express regret, and an excessive need to be “me”.  Undermining certainty  is likely when a sentence begins with “no,” “but,” or “however”; when you “explain why that won’t work”, when you withhold information, and when you “speak when angry: using emotional volatility as a management tool.” Being unwilling to let people have autonomy underlies making destructive comments, sarcasm, cutting remarks; withholding information, and claiming credit we don’t deserve. Several flaws destroy the sense of relatedness: passing judgments, making destructive comments, speaking when angry, failing to give proper recognition, claiming credit we don’t deserve, making excuses, clinging to the past to deflect blame, refusing to express regret, failing to express gratitude, and passing the buck. Fairness is damaged by failing to give proper recognition, withholding information, claiming credit we don’t deserve, playing favorites, and punishing the messenger.

Patrick Lencioni’s “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team” is an example about management consulting, “organizational development”.  Again, my intent is merely to show links. I’m not trying to simplify Lencioni’s work.

The message  is clear. Pay careful attention to the SCARF traits and needs. Are you reinforcing the traits with your colleagues, reports, and subordinates, letting them their work gratify them? Are you mistakenly undermining the traits,  consciously or unconsciously, putting your colleagues and subordinates immediately into flight-or-fright mode with its long term consequences that prevent effectiveness and productivity?

If you want to see the areas of the brain that are involved, look at the pictures in my earlier blog post, Getting Teams to Succeed. None of the originals are mine. They are from excellent British and German books of neuroanatomy and from images on the Internet. In a few, I have added colors myself.

[Fig. 1 Picture Of Brain From Left] 

Some executives and managers realize that the most effective way to get employees and teams to succeed is to praise, encourage, let people work at their own pace and time, let them work in their own ways, and from time to time make gentle suggestions for improvement.

Others think this is “soft” or “touchy-feely”. Their way to get work out of people is to ride them firmly, direct them concisely, or ride them hard; tell them exactly what to do, chastise or punish errors or falling behind, compare them unfavorably with colleagues, or use favoritism as carrot-and-stick. Some use these techniques without realizing they are doing it.

How do these management styles compare with what we know about how the brain works? Do they reflect what doctors and scientists have learned about how the brain affects the ways people and teams work?  Yes. We know enough about the brain to realize that there is nothing soft or touchy-feely about the first approach. It turns on circuits in the brain that inspire individuals and teams to do their best. On the other hand, the abrupt or carrot-and-stick style is like taking a wooden ship towards a rocky shore in a gale.

Why? In a review in The Neuroleadership Journal 1 (2008) Dr. David Rock described groups of traits he calls “SCARF”. SCARF is the acronym for Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. Scientific studies have shown that increasing these five traits increases productivity by increasing comfort,  creativity, and intuition. Going against any one of the traits has been shown to decrease effectiveness and productivity. Effectiveness and productivity drop in a fraction of a second; they drop a lot, and it takes hard work over a long time to get effectiveness and productivity back.

Status is social status, intellectual status, or personal sense of honor and worth within a group, a department, an organization, or a company. Certainty means the ability to know from moment to moment how an action or a series of actions will influence efforts to get the effect one wants and to avoid or reduce errors. It is a subconscious state of the brain when planning or carrying out complex tasks.  Autonomy means being free to choose between possibilities. It is what gives a person or a group a sense of being in control. Relatedness means feeling part of a group of friends. Lack of relatedness is what someone feels when (s)he is outside a clique or is forced to be face-to-face with an enemy. Fairness means feeling that authorities are treating you the same way that they are treating others: no prejudices, no insiders, no favoritism.

Workers and “reports” feel these traits or their absence. Their managers may not. A manager who is abrupt or uses a carrot-and-stick may not intend to undercut the SCARF traits. (S)he may not recognize (s)he is undercutting. What counts is how the people feel who are being managed.

There is a basis in the brain for the effect these traits have on work. Yes, these traits are also principles one can reach from studying consciousness, or from many spiritual pathways. Since there is a basis in the brain, each of these approaches, scientific, consciousness, spiritual,  reflects real truth about human beings. What is the basis in the brain?

Most of our brain deals with subconscious, reflex actions. Two big areas of reflex actions are those that keep us out of danger, making sure we avoid potential enemies or threats. This is survival. This is a basic need. It is much stronger than the second, opposite reflex actions of gratification. Gratification is wanting to be with people we love and things we love, wanting to stay with a supportive family or group, enjoying life, getting rewards.

The parts of the brain that deal with survival are largely toward the front surface of the forebrain, low down on the front sides, and deep within the front part of the brain.

Now we are back to less technical material: The subconscious brain acts in a few thousands of a second, in 5 to 10 milliseconds. The subconscious brain treats anything that threatens any one SCARF trait (status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, or fairness) as a danger or a threat. Danger threatens survival.  The need to survive is much stronger than the need to gratify with pleasant things or rewards. When the amygdala perceives a threat, it acts in milliseconds to send the rest of the brain into a “fight-or-flight” mode. The limbic system changes emotions to fear and anger.  The limbic system also brings up memories of fearful events and things that made the person angry. The insula sends signals of disgust and nausea. The major intuitive functions of the brain shut down, leaving only the thin layer of the pre-frontal cortex active. The pre-frontal cortex produces learned, linear, logical behaviors and nothing else. All of this is the survival  mode.

There is no way to avoid the survival mode. The person who is trying to survive cannot deal with non-linear problems.  The person cannot be creative. (S)he cannot think out of the box. (S)he cannot be kind to others, cannot work out new ways of doing things, and cannot use intuition. Intense survival is every man for himself. Teamwork and social abilities disappear. Managers and executives beware: the more often people perceive threats to survival  at their workplace, the worse the consequences. Behavior gets worse. Efficiency and productivity go down. 

There are exceptions, for example people trained to deal with emergencies and disasters. These include firefighters, the military, rescue workers, or emergency room nurses and physicians. Even these highly-trained people are hyper-focused when they are in survival mode. In survival mode, they use linear logic instead of creativity.  

The only protection from this automatic fright-or-flight is if a person has learned technologies of consciousness that include skills to block negative emotional responses or to discreate the unpleasant emotions that are stirred up.

The realities of the brain have a clear message for executives, managers, organizations and companies. Encourage the SCARF traits. 1) Treat employees, staff, colleagues, and teams so they feel they are valued. 2) Treat them so  they are certain whatever they try will be appreciated whether it succeeds or fails. 3) Treat them so they know they make their own decisions about what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. 4) Make them feel they are regarded as valuable members of an organization in which superiors, peers, and people under them are friends not rivals.  5) Make sure no-one supervising them plays favorites.

Success in consulting about organizational development and success in executive coaching follow these rules. The rules aren’t new. The same points were made by great writers and statesmen throughout the ages and by the originators of many spiritual practices. What is new is that there is now hard data from studies of the human brain that show the neurological reasons why these rules are true.

To give an example about executive coaching: In his book,  “What Got You Here Won’t Get You There”, the executive coach Marshall Goldsmith gives 20 types of flaws in interpersonal behavior that damage relations in a company.  Let me assign the flaws to SCARF categories. I don’t want to minimize the deep and broad analysis Goldsmith gives. I merely want to show that there are links between Goldsmith’s approach and Rock’s.

As I read Goldsmith’s list of flaws, problems with status seem to underlie the need to win too much, the need to add too much value, the need to tell the world how smart we are, the need to make excuses, the need to cling to the past to deflect blame, the refusal to express regret, and an excessive need to be “me”. Undermining certainty seems to involve starting a sentence with “no,” “but,” or “however”; with “explaining why that won’t work”, with withholding information, and perhaps with “speaking when angry: using emotional volatility as a management tool.” Being unwilling to let people have autonomy seems to underlie making destructive comments, sarcasm, cutting remarks; withholding information, and claiming credit we don’t deserve. Several of these flaws destroy the sense of relatedness: passing judgments, making destructive comments, speaking when angry, failing to give proper recognition, claiming credit we don’t deserve, making excuses and clinging to the past to deflect blame, refusing to express regret, failing to express gratitude, and passing the buck. Fairness is damaged by failing to give proper recognition, withholding information, claiming credit we don’t deserve, playing favorites, and punishing the messenger.

An example about management consulting is Patrick Lencioni’s “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team”.  Again, my intent is merely to show links. I’m not trying to simplify Lencioni’s work.

The message  is clear. Pay careful attention to the SCARF traits and needs. Are you reinforcing them with your colleagues and subordinates, letting them attain gratification in their work? Are you mistakenly undermining them, consciously or unconsciously, putting your colleagues and subordinates immediately into flight-or-fright mode with its long term consequences that prevent effectiveness and productivity?