Know Your Triggers. 5 Things That Make You Flip.

Everyone tried to avoid eye contact as silence engulfed the room after Peter stormed out the door. Never before had this team witnessed such a heated argument, nor have they ever been exposed to such a fallout between senior members of the team.

It was so unlike Peter to react this way thought Mike, he was normally quite composed and generally had a good handle on his emotions.

Peter had been with the organization since the start, part of the foundation, seen it through its initial startup years, nurtured it through the tough times and has been pivotal in its market growth, the cornerstone of new product development. His personal investment of time and energy has been inspirational over the years and has created a culture of customer centricity, loyalty and trust.

Fast-forward 5 years, the organization has seen significant financial and market growth, has expanded into new customer segments, and have been exploring new strategies to expand into international markets. To achieve these goals, the senior executive team looked towards fresh ideas, not to replace the talent they had on board, but to provide new perspectives, new ways of thinking. From the start, Peter seemed hesitant about the idea, citing things like culture dilution, lack of purpose and commitment towards the organization, and diversity issues as protests, but nothing like the explosion that just played itself out. Asking him to listen to one of the juniors, to give their ideas a shot seemed to push him right over the edge. He clung to his ideas irrationally, voicing concerns about the new plans that had no bearing on the outcomes. It just didn’t make sense.

Mike made a note to speak to Jane, their executive coach about this, to find out what could have possibly caused this reaction and how he should be going about the situation to resolve the issue. They cannot afford to lose Peter now. Even though he seemed opposed to the idea, he was key to ensuring that employees and customers are on board and benefit from their new initiatives.

Using Neuroscience To Work Effectively With Others

This type of unreasonable reaction towards perceived threat or reward is described in five domains in a model constructed by David Rock (Rock, 2008). The SCARF model describe domains such as Status in relation to others, Certainty about your current and future situations and stability, Autonomy as a sense of control over what you can do or influence, Relatedness within a group or setting of safety, and Fairness as a perception of how one or others are treated.

Status refers to the relative order or importance (perceived or real) of an individual within a group which typically is associated with power, privilege and at its most basic form survival. A sense of status is perceived to increase when comparisons indicate superiority which activates the primary reward system. Actions such as offering advice or feedback, performance appraisals and reviews or direct instructions activate threat signals, whereas receiving positive feedback and self-comparison and improvement stimulate the reward and approach trigger.

Certainty describes the area that deals with consistency, structure and a sense of predicting and control over the future. Going through the day to day becomes almost mechanical, but when something in the environment changes, it sharpens the attention. How will this affect me, how I do things and what will the impact be on my environment. Will this benefit me or could it remove some of the things I have become accustomed to. It happens from the smallest things like having to choose a different route to work, your favorite meal being out of stock, to larger things such as new team members, a new manager or possible layoffs at work.

When you get the sense that you have absolutely no say in what the outcome of a decision will be, or when you are told how to go about your job or micro managed in your deliverables, it affects the Autonomy trigger which can lead to passive aggressive behavior or full blown outright conflict. Allowing individuals and teams to create their own ways of working, empowering them to take decisions in the front ranks, and stimulating experimentation within adaptive governed guardrails will afford teams the opportunity to decide how and when they achieve expected goals, create a sense of purpose and trust and support sustainable engagement and employee satisfaction.

Exclusion from work groups, lack of transparent information, or even something as simple as not being considerate to diversity when scheduling team events can have significant impacts on how integrated team members feel. Relatedness speaks to the feeling of being part of a team or group, being in the know, and feeling considered friend or foe. In the digital economy, where virtual teams are becoming an everyday occurrence, creating an inclusive environment that openly embraces diversity, seeks opportunities to engage in robust discussion and facilitates collaboration is key to overcoming the very real problems of siloed individuals and isolated employees.

Apparent unfair exchanges between members within a group, or the oppression of specific individuals or subgroups based on difference or relative inequality fires up the Fairness flame, leading to background chatter and gossip or even a full revolt. Unfair behavior tends to trigger feelings of disgust, injustice and empathy, and can be associated with a threat and avoidance reaction towards the source of unjust behavior. Unclear ground rules or vague expectations in the workplace lead to many misunderstandings, frustration and anger which can be avoided by creating a common set of rules, transparently communicating when deviations to these rules are allowed (such as flexi time or other benefits) and facilitating open group discussions about team engagements.

(moviesanywhere.com, 2015)

Be The Difference

It is imperative that as leaders we understand not only our own triggers to ensure that we manage how we receive and interpret actions and information, but also how our actions and behaviors could impact those around us. What might seem like a perfectly good idea to you, could in fact be pushing all the buttons of your manager, or peers and could send them reeling head over heels down the ranting path (Rock & Cox, 2012).

Take the time, try to think about how your behavior and actions (or lack thereof) will impact and influence those around you. Find the time to regularly review your emotions, during the day. Check in with yourself and make sure that you are in touch with your emotional state, with your surroundings and the general mood of the ecosystem you are in. Frequently catchup with your seniors, peers and reports, openly discuss where you are coming from, what your intensions are and give them the opportunity to voice their views.

People talk about being part of something larger than themselves, of being connected, of being generative. It becomes quite clear that, for many, their experiences as part of truly great teams stand out as singular periods of life lived to the fullest.

Peter Senge

This forms part of an evolving series exploring Strategic Business and IT Alignment, Digital Enablement and Transformation, IT Governance, Organizational Design and Agility, and Strategic IT Management.

• A picture paints a thousand journeys
• Me, Myself and Mr. Miyagi.
• In Pursuit Of Strategic Business Alignment
• Why Workplace Relationship Management Matters?
• A Fascinating Case Of The Conflict Of The Orders
• Your Data Strategy And Why You Need To Consider It
• Commanding The Tension Between Jekyll and Hyde
• A Ghost In The Machine. Robotic Process Automation
• Know Your Triggers. 5 Things That Make You Flip

References

moviesanywhere.com, 2015. Inside Out. [Online] Available at: https://moviesanywhere.com/movie/inside-out-2015 [Accessed 13 Dec 2019].

Rock, D., 2008. SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1(1), pp. 44-52.

Rock, D. & Cox, C., 2012. SCARF in 2012: Updating the social neuroscience of collaborating with others. NeuroLeadership Journal, 4(4), pp. 1-16.