Switching Brains Series:
Even if we followed all the scientific instructions that are being recommended for employee engagement, we would still be disengaging employees, if we ignored one thing.
Do you want to know what that one thing is?
That is: “Making sure the brains of our employees are perceiving our well-intended efforts and policies as a reward and not a threat.”
So, before starting to follow the right instructions, we should stop doing the wrong things.
This article will change your perspective on Employee Engagement, if you aren’t already familiar with neuroscience and its influence on leadership.
Influence of Threat & Reward:
Studies show that there are five domains that activate in the brain the same reward circuitry that physical rewards (e.g. money) activate. They also activate the same threat circuitry that physical threats (e.g. pain) activate. Let’s refer to these five domains as S,C,A,R, and F for now and not define them for a minute.
Now the challenge here is not only to activate the reward domains, but also to make sure we have considered them in our policies, efforts, and approaches to engage employees.
The problem is while we may not intend to pose a threat to someone’s brain, that is exactly what we do quite often. The few examples below describe the nature and depth of the misunderstanding that takes place between organizations and leaders on one side and employees on the other.
The bigger problem, however, is that sometimes it is inevitable to pose a threat to someone’s brain or perhaps it is even a must, if we want to act legally or even ethically. In other words, protecting the brains of our employees could sometimes be the right thing to do from a brain and engagement perspective, but not from a legal, logical, or even moral vantage point.
So, is it a catch-22 situation? Yes and no, and here is why:
It is definitely more important for leaders to be aware of how the domains are being engaged (threat or reward) than to necessarily reward them.
Example: Let’s say it is inevitable to pose a threat to someone’s Status (S): Imagine, you have to provide feedback to your direct report—in the most productive manner—regarding how he failed in a project. No matter how well you present it, his S domain (sense of relative importance) will feel threatened. With SCARF in mind, you could reduce the adverse impact by rewarding that person’s other domains, e.g. Certainty (C), by elaborating on what exactly you will do, and perhaps more importantly, what you won’t, like not firing him. Or you could reward his Fairness (F), by reminding him of his strengths and achievements. Alternatively, you could manage the Autonomy domain (A) by providing him choices as opposed to giving him one solution to improve, or you could reward his brain on Relatedness (R) by giving him the impression that despite everything, he is still a recognized member of the team. Thus, you can only control this damage and minimize disengagement, if you are aware of how the brain works.
I will go as far as saying that you could even fire someone and have that person thank you for what you have done in the past. This is something I have seen happen once and have done twice myself. (Read my upcoming article: Firing Furious Fred)
Employee Engagement or Brain-gagement?
No matter what we do, people won’t be engaged, unless their brains are engaged. For this, leaders need to act in ways that their direct reports resonate with them. This is called neural entrainment. Neural entrainment refers to the capacity of the brain to naturally synchronize its brainwave frequencies with the rhythm of periodic external stimuli, most commonly auditory, visual, or tactile.
While the term “neural entrainment” may sound like a highly scientific phenomenon, it is simple. It happens when we interact with someone or talk to a crowd and then evaluate the interaction by saying things like “there was chemistry”, “we hit it off right away” or if the crowd feels highly attracted to your talk. Therefore, when using SCARF, it is important that leaders apply their storytelling skills as well for maximum engagement.
In addition to that, if leaders do not learn how to address which part of the brain in the right moment, they might end up discouraging when they mean to encourage, intimidating when they mean to make others curious, and making things ambiguous when they intend to clarify.
So, by learning to manage other people’s brains, leaders can activate their direct reports’ reward centers and make their brains spurt dopamine which is a reward and pleasure chemical. Dopamine is also responsible for creating new learning pathways which is essential for dealing with change or acquiring a new skill.
Leaders also need to learn how to use brain knowledge to allow for release of Serotonin which is done, for instance, by appropriate demonstration of recognition.
By the same token, leaders and not organizations are responsible for job satisfaction of employees. This is done by respectful treatment, creation of trust, and feelings of being valued. The reason for this is that the brain is hard-wired to connect with others and when it does, we receive a boost of oxytocin which creates trust.
It is exactly these 3 chemicals that stimulate activity in the thinking brain which is responsible for planning, impulse control, and many other cognitive functions our employees need in order to be engaged.
But a mismanaged feedback, a micromanaging approach to delegation, and an unintentional offence release cortisol. Cortisol shuts down the production of these good chemicals and allocates all of its resources to dealing with threats in the brain. Engagement and neural entrainment cannot happen, when cortisol is being released.
Thus, no matter how many of those policies, trainings, coaching sessions, team building activities, and programs based on differentiation between satisfied and engaged employees we are planning, we can only engage others, when the brain-works are done right.
Engagement: Whose job is it?
As discussed above, employee engagement is not only the work of an organization, but also that of a leader. The organization should mainly create a culture that is conducive to learning and growth. In addition to all the trainings and corporate culture projects that an organization provides its employees, it should equip its leaders with the skills to act in a brain-friendly manner.
Conclusion:
In sum, according to neuroscience, based on how we behave, certain neurons are fired and chemicals are released in the brains of others. If oxytocin, dopamine and serotonin are released, people are engaged. And if cortisol is spurt, people are disengaged. It is essential for leaders today to be able to switch between the different brain parts of their audience by learning the right skills.
Perhaps this simplification shows how more likely we are to have employee engagement, if we have brain-knowledge trained leaders even without a company-wide engagement policy as opposed to a well-thought engagement plan without leaders who know how to engage the brain.
Contact me at amirali@dalecarnegie.com if you want to know more about the brain and leadership and my Switching Brains leadership course.
