Managing with the Brain in Mind

Managing with the Brain in Mindby David Rock

from strategy+business issue 56, Autumn 2009 reprint number 09206

strategy+business

Reprint

featuresspecialreport

1


2

Naomi Eisenberger, a leading social neuroscienceresearcher at the University of California at Los Angeles(UCLA), wanted to understand what goes on in thebrain when people feel rejected by others. She designedan experiment in which volunteers played a computergame called Cyberball while having their brains scannedby a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)machine. Cyberball hearkens back to the nastiness of theschool playground. “People thought they were playing aball-tossing game over the Internet with two other peo-ple,” Eisenberger explains. “They could see an avatarthat represented themselves, and avatars [ostensibly] fortwo other people. Then, about halfway through thisgame of catch among the three of them, the subjectsstopped receiving the ball and the two other supposedplayers threw the ball only to each other.” Even after

they learned that no other human players were involved,the game players spoke of feeling angry, snubbed, orjudged, as if the other avatars excluded them becausethey didn’t like something about them.

This reaction could be traced directly to the brain’sresponses. “When people felt excluded,” says Eisen-berger, “we saw activity in the dorsal portion of the ante-rior cingulate cortex— the neural region involved in thedistressing component of pain, or what is sometimesreferred to as the ‘suffering’ component of pain. Thosepeople who felt the most rejected had the highest levelsof activity in this region.” In other words, the feeling ofbeing excluded provoked the same sort of reaction in thebrain that physical pain might cause. (See Exhibit 1.)

Eisenberger’s fellow researcher Matthew Lieberman,also of UCLA, hypothesizes that human beings evolved

Neuroscience research isrevealing the social nature of the

high-performance workplace.

Illus

trationby

LeighWells

by David Rock

Managingwith the Brain in Mind

SPECIAL REPORT: THE TALENT OPPORTUNITY


3

stra

tegy

+bu

sine

ssis

sue

56

this link between social connection and physical dis-comfort within the brain “because, to a mammal, beingsocially connected to caregivers is necessary for survival.”This study and many others now emerging have madeone thing clear: The human brain is a social organ. Itsphysiological and neurological reactions are directly andprofoundly shaped by social interaction. Indeed, asLieberman puts it, “Most processes operating in thebackground when your brain is at rest are involved inthinking about other people and yourself.”

This presents enormous challenges to managers.Although a job is often regarded as a purely economictransaction, in which people exchange their labor forfinancial compensation, the brain experiences the work-place first and foremost as a social system. Like theexperiment participants whose avatars were left out ofthe game, people who feel betrayed or unrecognized atwork — for example, when they are reprimanded, givenan assignment that seems unworthy, or told to take a paycut — experience it as a neural impulse, as powerful andpainful as a blow to the head. Most people who work incompanies learn to rationalize or temper their reactions;they “suck it up,” as the common parlance puts it. Butthey also limit their commitment and engagement.They become purely transactional employees, reluctantto give more of themselves to the company, because thesocial context stands in their way.

Leaders who understand this dynamic can moreeffectively engage their employees’ best talents, supportcollaborative teams, and create an environment that fos-ters productive change. Indeed, the ability to intention-ally address the social brain in the service of optimalperformance will be a distinguishing leadership capabil-ity in the years ahead.

David Rock([email protected]) is the founding presidentof the NeuroLeadershipInstitute (www.neuroleadership.org). He is also the CEO ofResults Coaching Systems,which helps global organiza-tions grow their leadershipteams, using brain research asa base for self-awareness andsocial awareness. He is theauthor of Your Brain at Work(HarperBusiness, 2009) andQuiet Leadership: Six Steps toTransforming Performance atWork (Collins, 2006).

Triggering the Threat ResponseOne critical thread of research on the social brain startswith the “threat and reward” response, a neurologicalmechanism that governs a great deal of human behavior.When you encounter something unexpected — ashadow seen from the corner of your eye or a new col-league moving into the office next door — the limbicsystem (a relatively primitive part of the brain, commonto many animals) is aroused. Neuroscientist EvianGordon refers to this as the “minimize danger, maximizereward” response; he calls it “the fundamental orga-nizing principle of the brain.” Neurons are activated andhormones are released as you seek to learn whether thisnew entity represents a chance for reward or a potentialdanger. If the perception is danger, then the responsebecomes a pure threat response — also known as thefight or flight response, the avoid response, and, in itsextreme form, the amygdala hijack, named for a part ofthe limbic system that can be aroused rapidly and in anemotionally overwhelming way.

Recently, researchers have documented that thethreat response is often triggered in social situations, andit tends to be more intense and longer-lasting than thereward response. Data gathered through measures ofbrain activity — by using fMRI and electroencephalo-graph (EEG) machines or by gauging hormonal secre-tions — suggests that the same neural responses thatdrive us toward food or away from predators are trig-gered by our perception of the way we are treated byother people. These findings are reframing the prevailingview of the role that social drivers play in influencinghow humans behave. Matthew Lieberman notes thatAbraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” theory mayhave been wrong in this respect. Maslow proposed that


4

humans tend to satisfy their needs in sequence, startingwith physical survival and moving up the ladder towardself-actualization at the top. In this hierarchy, socialneeds sit in the middle. But many studies now show thatthe brain equates social needs with survival; for example,being hungry and being ostracized activate similar neu-ral responses.

The threat response is both mentally taxing anddeadly to the productivity of a person— or of an organ-ization. Because this response uses up oxygen and glu-cose from the blood, they are diverted from other partsof the brain, including the working memory function,which processes new information and ideas. Thisimpairs analytic thinking, creative insight, and problem

solving; in other words, just when people most needtheir sophisticated mental capabilities, the brain’s inter-nal resources are taken away from them.

The impact of this neural dynamic is often visiblein organizations. For example, when leaders trigger athreat response, employees’ brains become much lessefficient. But when leaders make people feel good aboutthemselves, clearly communicate their expectations, giveemployees latitude to make decisions, support people’sefforts to build good relationships, and treat the wholeorganization fairly, it prompts a reward response. Othersin the organization become more effective, more opento ideas, and more creative. They notice the kind ofinformation that passes them by when fear or resent-

PhysicalPain

SocialPain

Exhibit 1: Social and Physical Pain Produce Similar Brain Responses

Illustration: Samuel ValascoSource: Eisenberger, Lieberman, and Williams, Science, 2003 (social pain images); Lieberman et al., “The Neural Correlates of Placebo Effects: A Disruption Account,”Neuroimage, May 2004 (physical pain images)

Brain scans captured through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) show the same areas associated with distress, whether caused bysocial rejection or physical pain. The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (highlighted at left) is associated with the degree of distress; the right ventralprefrontal cortex (highlighted at right) is associated with regulating the distress.

ocialain

rejection or physical pain. The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (highlighted at left) isntal cortex (highlighted at right) is associated with regulating the distre

Neural Correlates of Placebo Effects: A Disruption Account,”tion: Sam: Eisenberger, Liebe pain images); Liebermage, May 2004 (physical pain images)

muel Valasc

hysicain

cal

rman et al., “The Nrman, and Williams, Science, 2003 (socialo

ess.


5

stra

tegy

+bu

sine

ssis

sue

56

ment makes it difficult to focus their attention. They areless susceptible to burnout because they are able to man-age their stress. They feel intrinsically rewarded.

Understanding the threat and reward response canalso help leaders who are trying to implement large-scalechange. The track record of failed efforts to sparkhigher-perfomance behavior has led many managers toconclude that human nature is simply intractable: “Youcan’t teach an old dog new tricks.” Yet neuroscience hasalso discovered that the human brain is highly plastic.Neural connections can be reformed, new behaviors canbe learned, and even the most entrenched behaviorscan be modified at any age. The brain will make theseshifts only when it is engaged in mindful attention. Thisis the state of thought associated with observing one’sown mental processes (or, in an organization, steppingback to observe the flow of a conversation as it is hap-pening). Mindfulness requires both serenity and con-centration; in a threatened state, people are much morelikely to be “mindless.” Their attention is diverted by thethreat, and they cannot easily move to self-discovery.

In a previous article (“The Neuroscience ofLeadership,” s+b, Summer 2006), brain scientist JeffreySchwartz and I proposed that organizations could mar-shal mindful attention to create organizational change.They could do this over time by putting in place regularroutines in which people would watch the patterns oftheir thoughts and feelings as they worked and thusdevelop greater self-awareness. We argued that this wasthe only way to change organizational behavior; that the“carrots and sticks” of incentives (and behavioral psy-chology) did not work, and that the counseling andempathy of much organizational development was notefficient enough to make a difference.

Research into the social nature of the brain suggestsanother piece of this puzzle. Five particular qualitiesenable employees and executives alike to minimize thethreat response and instead enable the reward response.These five social qualities are status, certainty, auton-omy, relatedness, and fairness: Because they can beexpressed with the acronym SCARF, I sometimes thinkof them as a kind of headgear that an organization canwear to prevent exposure to dysfunction. To understandhow the SCARF model works, let’s look at each charac-teristic in turn.

Status and Its DiscontentsAs humans, we are constantly assessing how socialencounters either enhance or diminish our status. Re-search published by Hidehiko Takahashi et al. in 2009shows that when people realize that they might compareunfavorably to someone else, the threat response kicksin, releasing cortisol and other stress-related hormones.(Cortisol is an accurate biological marker of the threatresponse; within the brain, feelings of low status provokethe kind of cortisol elevation associated with sleep dep-rivation and chronic anxiety.)

Separately, researcher Michael Marmot, in his bookThe Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects OurHealth and Longevity (Times Books, 2004), has shownthat high status correlates with human longevity andhealth, even when factors like income and education arecontrolled for. In short, we are biologically programmedto care about status because it favors our survival.

As anyone who has lived in a modest house in ahigh-priced neighborhood knows, the feeling of status isalways comparative. And an executive with a salary ofUS$500,000 may feel elevated. . .until he or she is

Neuroscience has discovered that the brainis highly plastic. Even the most

entrenched behaviors can be modified.

assigned to work with an executive making $2.5 million.A study by Joan Chiao in 2003 found that the neuralcircuitry that assesses status is similar to that whichprocesses numbers; the circuitry operates even when thestakes are meaningless, which is why winning a boardgame or being the first off the mark at a green light feelsso satisfying. Competing against ourselves in games likesolitaire triggers the same circuitry, which may helpexplain the phenomenal popularity of video games.

Understanding the role of status as a core concerncan help leaders avoid organizational practices that stircounterproductive threat responses among employees.For example, performance reviews often provoke athreat response; people being reviewed feel that the exer-cise itself encroaches on their status. This makes 360-degree reviews, unless extremely participative and well-designed, ineffective at generating positive behavioralchange. Another common status threat is the custom ofoffering feedback, a standard practice for both managersand coaches. The mere phrase “Can I give you someadvice?” puts people on the defensive becausethey perceive the person offering advice as claiming su-periority. It is the cortisol equivalent of hearing footstepsin the dark.

Organizations often assume that the only way toraise an employee’s status is to award a promotion. Yetstatus can also be enhanced in less-costly ways. Forexample, the perception of status increases when peopleare given praise. Experiments conducted by Keise Izumain 2008 show that a programmed status-related stimu-lus, in the form of a computer saying “good job,” lightsup the same reward regions of the brain as a financialwindfall. The perception of status also increases whenpeople master a new skill; paying employees more for

the skills they have acquired, rather than for theirseniority, is a status booster in itself.

Values have a strong impact on status. An organiza-tion that appears to value money and rank more than abasic sense of respect for all employees will stimulatethreat responses among employees who aren’t at the topof the heap. Similarly, organizations that try to pit peo-ple against one another on the theory that it will makethem work harder reinforce the idea that there are onlywinners and losers, which undermines the standing ofpeople below the top 10 percent.

A Craving for CertaintyWhen an individual encounters a familiar situation, hisor her brain conserves its own energy by shifting into akind of automatic pilot: it relies on long-establishedneural connections in the basal ganglia and motor cor-tex that have, in effect, hardwired this situation and theindividual’s response to it. This makes it easy to do whatthe person has done in the past, and it frees that personto do two things at once; for example, to talk while driv-ing. But the minute the brain registers ambiguity orconfusion — if, for example, the car ahead of the driverslams on its brakes — the brain flashes an error signal.With the threat response aroused and working memorydiminished, the driver must stop talking and shift fullattention to the road.

Uncertainty registers (in a part of the brain calledthe anterior cingulate cortex) as an error, gap, or tension:something that must be corrected before one can feelcomfortable again. That is why people crave certainty.Not knowing what will happen next can be profoundlydebilitating because it requires extra neural energy. Thisdiminishes memory, undermines performance, and dis-engages people from the present.

Of course, uncertainty is not necessarily debilitat-ing. Mild uncertainty attracts interest and attention:New and challenging situations create a mild threatresponse, increasing levels of adrenalin and dopaminejust enough to spark curiosity and energize people tosolve problems. Moreover, different people respond touncertainty in the world around them in different ways,depending in part on their existing patterns of thought.For example, when that car ahead stops suddenly, thedriver who thinks, “What should I do?” is likely tobe ineffective, whereas the driver who frames the inci-dent as manageable — “I need to swerve left nowbecause there’s a car on the right” — is well equipped torespond. All of life is uncertain; it is the perception of


6


7

stra

tegy

+bu

sine

ssis

sue

56

too much uncertainty that undercuts focus and per-formance. When perceived uncertainty gets out ofhand, people panic and make bad decisions.

Leaders and managers must thus work to create aperception of certainty to build confident and dedicatedteams. Sharing business plans, rationales for change, andaccurate maps of an organization’s structure promotesthis perception. Giving specifics about organizationalrestructuring helps people feel more confident about aplan, and articulating how decisions are made increasestrust. Transparent practices are the foundation on whichthe perception of certainty rests.

Breaking complex projects down into small stepscan also help create the feeling of certainty. Although it’shighly unlikely everything will go as planned, peoplefunction better because the project now seems lessambiguous. Like the driver on the road who has enoughinformation to calculate his or her response, an em-ployee focused on a single, manageable aspect of a taskis unlikely to be overwhelmed by threat responses.

The Autonomy FactorStudies by Steven Maier at the University of Bouldershow that the degree of control available to an animalconfronted by stressful situations determines whether ornot that stressor undermines the ability to function.Similarly, in an organization, as long as people feel theycan execute their own decisions without much over-sight, stress remains under control. Because humanbrains evolved in response to stressors over thousands ofyears, they are constantly attuned, usually at a subcon-scious level, to the ways in which social encountersthreaten or support the capacity for choice.

A perception of reduced autonomy — for example,because of being micromanaged — can easily generate athreat response.When an employee experiences a lack ofcontrol, or agency, his or her perception of uncertaintyis also aroused, further raising stress levels. By contrast,the perception of greater autonomy increases the feelingof certainty and reduces stress.

Leaders who want to support their people’s need forautonomy must give them latitude to make choices,especially when they are part of a team or working witha supervisor. Presenting people with options, or allowingthem to organize their own work and set their ownhours, provokes a much less stressed response than forc-ing them to follow rigid instructions and schedules. In1977, a well-known study of nursing homes by JudithRodin and Ellen Langer found that residents who were

given more control over decision making lived longerand healthier lives than residents in a control group whohad everything selected for them. The choices them-selves were insignificant; it was the perception of auton-omy that mattered.

Another study, this time of the franchise industry,identified work–life balance as the number one reasonthat people left corporations and moved into a franchise.Yet other data showed that franchise owners actuallyworked far longer hours (often for less money) than theyhad in corporate life. They nevertheless perceived them-selves to have a better work–life balance because theyhad greater scope to make their own choices. Leaderswho know how to satisfy the need for autonomy amongtheir people can reap substantial benefits — without los-ing their best people to the entrepreneurial ranks.

Relating to RelatednessFruitful collaboration depends on healthy relationships,which require trust and empathy. But in the brain, theability to feel trust and empathy about others is shapedby whether they are perceived to be part of the samesocial group. This pattern is visible in many domains: insports (“I hate the other team”), in organizational silos(“the ‘suits’ are the problem”), and in communities(“those people on the other side of town always messthings up”).

Each time a person meets someone new, the brainautomatically makes quick friend-or-foe distinctionsand then experiences the friends and foes in ways thatare colored by those distinctions. When the new personis perceived as different, the information travels alongneural pathways that are associated with uncomfortablefeelings (different from the neural pathways triggered bypeople who are perceived as similar to oneself ).

Leaders who understand this phenomenon will findmany ways to apply it in business. For example, teamsof diverse people cannot be thrown together. They mustbe deliberately put together in a way that minimizes thepotential for threat responses. Trust cannot be assumedor mandated, nor can empathy or even goodwill becompelled. These qualities develop only when people’sbrains start to recognize former strangers as friends. Thisrequires time and repeated social interaction.

Once people make a stronger social connection,their brains begin to secrete a hormone called oxytocinin one another’s presence. This chemical, which hasbeen linked with affection, maternal behavior, sexualarousal, and generosity, disarms the threat response and


8

The cognitive need for fairness is so strong thatsome people are willing to fight and die for causesthey believe are just — or commit themselves whole-heartedly to an organization they recognize as fair. Anexecutive told me he had stayed with his company for22 years simply because “they always did the rightthing.” People often engage in volunteer work for simi-lar reasons: They perceive their actions as increasing thefairness quotient in the world.

In organizations, the perception of unfairness cre-ates an environment in which trust and collaborationcannot flourish. Leaders who play favorites or whoappear to reserve privileges for people who are like themarouse a threat response in employees who are outsidetheir circle. The old boys’ network provides an egregiousexample; those who are not a part of it always perceivetheir organizations as fundamentally unfair, no matterhow many mentoring programs are put in place.

Like certainty, fairness is served by transparency.Leaders who share information in a timely manner cankeep people engaged and motivated, even during staffreductions. Morale remains relatively high when peopleperceive that cutbacks are being handled fairly — thatno one group is treated with preference and that there isa rationale for every cut.

Putting on the SCARFIf you are a leader, every action you take and everydecision you make either supports or undermines theperceived levels of status, certainty, autonomy, related-ness, and fairness in your enterprise. In fact, this is whyleading is so difficult. Your every word and glance isfreighted with social meaning. Your sentences andgestures are noticed and interpreted, magnified and

further activates the neural networks that permit us toperceive someone as “just like us.” Research by MichaelKosfeld et al. in 2005 shows that a shot of oxytocindelivered by means of a nasal spray decreases threatarousal. But so may a handshake and a shared glanceover something funny.

Conversely, the human threat response is arousedwhen people feel cut off from social interaction.Loneliness and isolation are profoundly stressful. JohnT.Cacioppo and William Patrick showed in 2008 thatloneliness is itself a threat response to lack of social con-tact, activating the same neurochemicals that flood thesystem when one is subjected to physical pain. Leaderswho strive for inclusion and minimize situations inwhich people feel rejected create an environment thatsupports maximum performance. This of course raises achallenge for organizations: How can they foster relat-edness among people who are competing with oneanother or who may be laid off?

Playing for FairnessThe perception that an event has been unfair generatesa strong response in the limbic system, stirring hostilityand undermining trust. As with status, people perceivefairness in relative terms, feeling more satisfied with afair exchange that offers a minimal reward than anunfair exchange in which the reward is substantial.Studies conducted by Matthew Lieberman and GolnazTabibnia found that people respond more positively tobeing given 50 cents from a dollar split between themand another person than to receiving $8 out of a total of$25. Another study found that the experience of fairnessproduces reward responses in the brain similar to thosethat occur from eating chocolate.

We now have reason to believe that economicincentives are effective only when people perceive

them as supporting their social needs.


9

stra

tegy

+bu

sine

ssis

sue

56

combed for meanings you may never have intended.The SCARF model provides a means of bringing

conscious awareness to all these potentially fraughtinteractions. It helps alert you to people’s core concerns(which they may not even understand themselves) andshows you how to calibrate your words and actions tobetter effect.

Start by reducing the threats inherent in your com-pany and in its leaders’ behavior. Just as the animal brainis wired to respond to a predator before it can focusattention on the hunt for food, so is the social brainwired to respond to dangers that threaten its core con-cerns before it can perform other functions. Threatalways trumps reward because the threat response isstrong, immediate, and hard to ignore. Once aroused,it is hard to displace, which is why an unpleasantencounter in traffic on the morning drive to work candistract attention and impair performance all day.Humans cannot think creatively, work well with others,or make informed decisions when their threat responsesare on high alert. Skilled leaders understand this andact accordingly.

A business reorganization provides a good example.Reorganizations generate massive amounts of uncertain-ty, which can paralyze people’s ability to perform. Aleader attuned to SCARF principles therefore makesreducing the threat of uncertainty the first order of busi-ness. For example, a leader might kick off the process bysharing as much information as possible about the rea-sons for the reorganization, painting a picture of thefuture company and explaining what the specific impli-cations will be for the people who work there. Much willbe unknown, but being clear about what is known andwilling to acknowledge what is not goes a long waytoward ameliorating uncertainty threats.

Reorganizations also stir up threats to autonomy,because people feel they lack control over their future.An astute leader will address these threats by giving peo-ple latitude to make as many of their own decisions aspossible — for example, when the budget must be cut,involving the people closest to the work in decidingwhat must go. Because many reorganizations entailinformation technology upgrades that undermine peo-

ple’s perception of autonomy by foisting new systems onthem without their consent, it is essential to providecontinuous support and solicit employees’ participationin the design of new systems.

Top-down strategic planning is often inimical toSCARF-related reactions. Having a few key leaders comeup with a plan and then expecting people to buy into itis a recipe for failure, because it does not take the threatresponse into account. People rarely support initiativesthey had no part in designing; doing so would under-mine both autonomy and status. Proactively addressingthese concerns by adopting an inclusive planningprocess can prevent the kind of unconscious sabotagethat results when people feel they have played no part ina change that affects them every day.

Leaders often underestimate the importance ofaddressing threats to fairness. This is especially truewhen it comes to compensation. Although most peopleare not motivated primarily by money, they are pro-foundly de-motivated when they believe they arebeing unfairly paid or that others are overpaid by com-parison. Leaders who recognize fairness as a core con-cern understand that disproportionately increasingcompensation at the top makes it impossible to fullyengage people at the middle or lower end of the payscale. Declaring that a highly paid executive is “doing agreat job” is counterproductive in this situation becausethose who are paid less will interpret it to mean that theyare perceived to be poor performers.

For years, economists have argued that people willchange their behavior if they have sufficient incentives.But these economists have defined incentives almostexclusively in economic terms. We now have reason tobelieve that economic incentives are effective only whenpeople perceive them as supporting their social needs.Status can also be enhanced by giving an employeegreater scope to plan his or her schedule or the chanceto develop meaningful relationships with those at differ-ent levels in the organization. The SCARF model thusprovides leaders with more nuanced and cost-effectiveways to expand the definition of reward. In doing so,SCARF principles also provide a more granular under-standing of the state of engagement, in which employ-ees give their best performance. Engagement can beinduced when people working toward objectives feelrewarded by their efforts, with a manageable level ofthreat: in short, when the brain is generating rewards inseveral SCARF-related dimensions.

Leaders themselves are not immune to the SCARF


10

dynamic; like everyone else, they react when they feeltheir status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairtreatment are threatened. However, their reactions havemore impact, because they are picked up and amplifiedby others throughout the company. (If a company’sexecutive salaries are excessive, it may be because othersare following the leader’s intuitive emphasis, driven bysubconscious cognition, on anything that adds status.)

If you are an executive leader, the more practicedyou are at reading yourself, the more effective you willbe. For example, if you understand that micromanagingthreatens status and autonomy, you will resist your ownimpulse to gain certainty by dictating every detail.Instead, you’ll seek to disarm people by giving them lat-itude to make their own mistakes. If you have felt thehairs on the back of your own neck rise when someonesays, “Can I offer you some feedback?” you will know it’sbest to create opportunities for people to do the hardwork of self-assessment rather than insisting theydepend on performance reviews.

When a leader is self-aware, it gives others a feelingof safety even in uncertain environments. It makes it eas-ier for employees to focus on their work, which leads toimproved performance. The same principle is evident inother groups of mammals, where a skilled pack leaderkeeps members at peace so they can perform their func-tions. A self-aware leader modulates his or her behaviorto alleviate organizational stress and creates an environ-ment in which motivation and creativity flourish. Onegreat advantage of neuroscience is that it provides harddata to vouch for the efficacy and value of so-called softskills. It also shows the danger of being a hard-chargingleader whose best efforts to move people along also setup a threat response that puts others on guard.

Similarly, many leaders try to repress their emotionsin order to enhance their leadership presence, but thisonly confuses people and undermines morale. Exper-iments by Kevin Ochsner and James Gross show thatwhen someone tries not to let other people see what heor she is feeling, the other party tends to experience athreat response. That’s why being spontaneous is key tocreating an authentic leadership presence. This approachis likely to minimize status threats, increase certainty,and create a sense of relatedness and fairness.

Finally, the SCARF model helps explain why intelli-gence, in itself, isn’t sufficient for a good leader. MatthewLieberman’s research suggests that high intelligenceoften corresponds with low self-awareness. The neuralnetworks involved in information holding, planning,

and cognitive problem solving reside in the lateral, orouter, portions of the brain, whereas the middle regionssupport self-awareness, social skills, and empathy. Theseregions are inversely correlated. As Lieberman notes, “Ifyou spend a lot of time in cognitive tasks, your ability tohave empathy for people is reduced simply because thatpart of your circuitry doesn’t get much use.”

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing leaders of busi-ness or government is to create the kind of atmospherethat promotes status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness,and fairness. When historians look back, their judgmentof this period in time may rise or fall on how organiza-tions, and society as a whole, operated. Did they treatpeople fairly, draw people together to solve problems,promote entrepreneurship and autonomy, foster certain-ty wherever possible, and find ways to raise the perceivedstatus of everyone? If so, the brains of the future willsalute them. +

Reprint No. 09306

Resources

John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick, Loneliness: Human Nature and theNeed for Social Connection (W.W. Norton, 2008): A scientific look at thecauses and effects of emotional isolation.

Michael Marmot, The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects OurHealth and Longevity (Times Books, 2004): An epidemiologist shows thatpeople live longer when they have status, autonomy, and relatedness, evenif they lack money.

David Rock, Your Brain at Work: Strategies for Overcoming Distraction,Regaining Focus, andWorking Smarter All Day Long (HarperBusiness,2009): Neuroscience explanations for workplace challenges and dilemmas,and strategies for managing them.

David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz, “The Neuroscience of Leadership,” s+b,Summer 2006, www.strategy-business.com/press/article/06207: Applyingbreakthroughs in brain research, this article explains the value of neuro-plasticity in organizational change.

David Rock, “SCARF: A Brain-based Model for Collaborating with andInfluencing Others,” NeuroLeadership Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, December2008, 44: Overview of research on the five factors described in this article,and contains bibliographic references for research quoted in this article.

Naomi Eisenberger and Matthew Lieberman, with K.D. Williams, “DoesRejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion,” Science, vol. 302,no. 5643, October 2003, 290–292: Covers the Cyberball experiment.

Naomi Eisenberger and Matthew Lieberman, “The Pains and Pleasures ofSocial Life,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5916, February 2009, 890–891:Explication of social pain and social pleasure, and the impact of fairness,status, and autonomy on brain response.

NeuroLeadership Institute Web site, www.neuroleadership.org: Institutebringing together research scientists and management experts to explorethe transformation of organizational development and performance.

For more business thought leadership, sign up for s+b ’s RSS feeds atwww.strategy-business.com/rss

strategy+business magazineis published by Booz & Company Inc.To subscribe, visit www.strategy-business.comor call 1-877-829-9108.

For more information about Booz & Company,visit www.booz.com

Looking for Booz Allen Hamilton? It can be found at at www.boozallen.com© 2009 Booz & Company Inc.

Documents

Managing with the Brain in Mind