Posts

Brain-based Coaching Part 2

/0 Comments/in /by

© Orson Dreamstime.com - Abstract Speaker Silhouette PhotoIn an earlier post, ” What’s all the fuss about brain-based coaching,” I presented the case for a neuroscience-based approach to coaching (workplace, executive, business–any type of coaching). I also mentioned a foundational idea that guides our brain-based approach: the brain’s primary organizing principle to minimize danger and maximize reward.

Still wondering about its value? Hopefully, this blog will give you additional food for thought.

I’m confident about the need for brain-based coaching given the hundreds of active coaches who have attended programs I’ve delivered who were looking for something more than the coach training they had already completed. Most (you can’t win them all, can you?) came away with something valuable if not a transformational shift in their coaching.

Even my facilitation style has evolved and is now grounded in a brain-based coaching approach. I feel my role when delivering a workshop is to be a “facilitator of insight,” rather than a platform trainer who “guides” participants to the “correct answer” through more (what I’d call) leading questions. I didn’t mean to step on any toes there; it’s my journey talking.

Brain-based coaching is a lot about “high intent with low attachment,” which is easier said than done. Our inclination is to solve someone else’s problem with OUR idea doesn’t go away. You still haves ideas and you still want to SHARE them. A brain-based coach simply gets better at “gating” that reaction. With experience, a brain-based coach starts to realize that clients really DO like their own ideas best and the coach’s suggestion is often more interesting to the coach than to the client.

That’s NOT to say executives and businesspeople don’t want you to bring some experience or know-how to the table. They do! For a brain-based coach, however, it’s about determining whether in a coaching conversation or session there is a NEED to share or suggest AND, if so, when and HOW to share. A brain-based coach will also be more explicit about what “role” they are adopting with a client given the situation, its context, and the client’s stated and unstated needs. I’ll often refer to switching hats in a conversation, e.g., “Would you like me to take off my coaching hat and put on my consulting hat?”

“I already do all of that,” a coach might say.

Watching hundreds of coaches in action in programs and as a mentor coach or coaching client tells me otherwise. Even newer brain-based coaches need some “seasoning” time. How much? About 6 to 12 months from my observations. We all know it takes time to form new habits and brain-based coaching goes against the grain of our normal human inclinations. I often refer to brain-based coaching as a “delayed gratification” style of coaching. For those of you who LOVE being “the expert” or “the answer person” or “Mr./Ms./Mrs. Fix-it,” you will not like being a brain-based coach UNLESS you reframe that preference. The shift is moving from being a “content” expert to becoming a “process” expert. You develop an expertise in your coaching process and let your clients remain the expert on their: situation, business, people, challenges, issues, goals, preferences…

“So what is my value as a brain-based coach,” you might ask.

You offer tremendous value as a brain-based coach. You honor your client’s brain by understanding its limitations. You help them overcome the “rush to action” by slowing them down and giving them space to look at things differently, while keeping an eye on the high level cognitively irritating or expensive things. You can help them come up with new ideas by speeding up the brain’s “insight” mechanism. You know which brain networks are triggered or required in different coaching scenarios and how to strengthen the more valuable networks. Put simply, you work with your client’s brain instead of against it. And that’s not as simple as it sounds.

If you have questions about brain-based coaching or want to improve your leadership, management, teaching or coaching approach, email Paul@Response-AbleConsulting.com.

How confident are you in your decision making?

/0 Comments/in , /by
Read more

What does brain-friendly sound like?

/0 Comments/in /by

© Borisovv Dreamstime.com - Magnifying Ear PhotoWhen thinking about what to write about this week, I thought it made sense to continue the thread from a post from two week’s ago, “What’s all the fuss about brain-based coaching,” that continues from an earlier post, “So you really think you’re brain-friendly.” People can sometimes think they are being brain-friendly or using a brain-based coaching approach when, in fact, they are being more directive than they realize OR creating what I call “unnecessary threat.”

A critical idea

One of the essential ideas we work with is from Evian Gordon’s work (previously cited). It involves what he calls “the brain’s primary organizing principle: minimize danger and maximize reward.” If there is one idea our work is built on, it is this idea.

When teaching people about a brain-based approach, the brain’s primary organizing principle can be easily misinterpreted or misapplied. People (teachers, leaders, managers…) think we need to eliminate ALL danger.

First of all, that is virtually impossible. Secondly, we don’t need to eliminate ALL danger. We need to know how and when to work with “danger.” Here’s one approach:

  • First, we need to understand the nature of how the brain responds to danger
  • Then, we need to understand how danger is created for the brain
  • Next, we need to understand when danger is helpful and when it is harmful
  • Continuing on, we need to pay attention to how we are working with danger and reward in our moment-to-moment interactions based on what we are trying to help others achieve
  • Finally, we need to adjust in the moment based on what is actually happening for the person in front of us (whether danger or reward is being triggered in the desired amounts relative to our focus)

And since all of this plays out when we are interacting with each other (live, virtually, or electronically), it’s helpful if we have a map for what a brain-friendly conversation sounds like. Let’s listen in…

Manager: Hey Alex, I’d like to catch-up with you on Project X. It seems like all is on track. I simply need to provide a brief update on it to management. I’d like to find out what’s going well and what else you recommend based on the current state of the project. When would be a good time for us to connect and about how long do you think that would take?
Worker: Oh, OK. It probably shouldn’t take that long, maybe 15 or so minutes. Can we do it later in the week?
Manager: I need to provide the update by Friday so is there time before then?
Worker: Sure, I guess I can make Thursday work.
Manager: Excellent, what time? The morning is pretty wide open.
Worker: How about 10:00am?
Manager: That works. Is there anything you need from me to make this meeting most productive?
Worker: I guess what it is that you want to cover.
Manager: Mainly how complete we are on the project and anything we need to anticipate to make sure we bring things in on time and on budget.
Worker: Well, there is one issue we are having.
Manager: OK, thanks for giving me a heads up. Let’s not get into it right now, if that’s OK. When we meet, I’d love to hear your thoughts on what we might consider doing to address the issue and any other thoughts you have or things you’re learning based on where the project stands.
Worker: OK, I’ll put some notes together.
Manager: Thanks. I’m looking forward to connecting Thursday morning.
Worker: OK, thanks.

You may be wondering, “What’s so brain-friendly about this? Why is this so long? Why not just say, ‘Hey Alex, I need an update on Project X by Thursday morning.’?”

Rather than simply GIVING you the answers, I’d love to hear YOUR thoughts:

  • Where are the potential “dangers” of this request?
  • How/where is the manager minimizing threats?
  • How/where is the manager offering rewards?
  • What brain needs is the manager addressing and how/where?
  • Any other thoughts, questions or connections?

In other words, how brain-friendly are you? (Danger! Danger! Danger!)

So you really think you’re brain-friendly?

/0 Comments/in /by

Disclaimer: I might step on some of your toes with this blog post.

I’ve delivered hundreds of brain-based programs to thousands of people over the past 10 years and am often dismayed (but not surprised) when I come across a person who says, “I already know this,” or “I already do that,” but when you watch them in action and listen to them in conversation–it is clear they do not.

Some of the reasons for this are linked to the brain itself. It feels good to the brain to think it is good at something (“I already do that”). It feels good to feel we are better than others (“I already know that”). It also feels painful to the brain to not know something or to find out you didn’t know something.

Another common mistake I’ve seen is people who think a brain-friendly or coach-like approach is all about questioning. While questioning is a significant piece of the puzzle, it is the kinds and types of questions you ask that truly make the difference (I’ll be speaking on this more at the Partners in Business – Operation Excellence conference).

I’ve come to believe there are seven (7) fundamental conversations we engage in at work, whether it be the classroom, the conference room, or the boardroom:

  1. Goals
  2. Plans
  3. Steps
  4. Follow-up
  5. Problems
  6. Performance issues
  7. Blind Spots

Just as there are seven conversation types, we think there are seven types of questions that are related to or relevant for each of these conversations (there is even a “special case” type 8). And there is different neuroscience research that supports each of these conversations, some foundational, some you might call more “type-related.”

For instance, “Conversation 7 – Blind Spots” refers to actions that are more non-conscious or “blind” to the people performing them. The brain loves to make things automatic so it doesn’t have to spend precious (and limited) energy to rethink every action we take. The very nature of it being automatic means it doesn’t require conscious thought or effort. That’s good (do you want to relearn how to brush your teeth every day?!) AND it can be costly in some ways. We can be automatic about things that require a bit more conscious thought or we can do or say something without even realizing we haven’t given it a conscious thought. Helping someone with a blind spot involves raising his awareness in a way that doesn’t overly engage the “fight or flight” response (governed by the limbic system). Asking “presence” or “learning” questions can help shift someone’s brain into a more quiet state and allow her to “see” themselves in action in order to make more conscious decisions.

This is but one example across the seven conversations. Things are even more complicated by the fact that our brain strives to minimize danger multiple times every second. It is our primary organizing principle (E. Gordon, 2001). This hypersensitivity to threats effects our questioning approach. We tend to hyper-focus on danger (a.k.a. problems) and “question into” them.

And that brings me back to my disclaimer. I don’t fault or judge the people who say, “I already do that,” or “I already know that.” Many do. But in some cases, the person’s brain has taken over (it’s usually in charge without us being aware!) and the questions he asks are not the best he might ask.

When you truly understand the brain, you can begin to change the way you show up and you can start to behave in a much more brain-friendly way–starting with the questions you ask.

You’ll be amazed at the results you can get.

So you think you know you? Think again.

/0 Comments/in , /by
© 2005-2008 FMRIB Centre

                © 2005-2008 FMRIB Centre

“There is a very long history within psychology of people not being very good judges of what they will actually do in a future situation.”

These words are from  Matthew Lieberman, Ph.D., the co-founding father of the field of social cognitive neuroscience, the Director of UCLA’s Social Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, and the author of the book “Social.”

Why is his statement important?  

Because the field of neuroscience, including Matt and his colleagues’ pioneering work, is helping us to better understand what is going on in our very unique and complex brains. And things are not always what they appear to be.

And  why is  that important? 

Because all of us want results: in life, at home, at work, in school. We are all trying to achieve something, and if you understand the brain and know how to work with it—instead of against it—you can improve your chances.

How do I know that? 

Because I’ve spent the past 10 years learning to understand the brain, how it functions, its limitations, what is common among us, and what is different between us when it comes to what is literally inside of our heads. I’ve delivered hundreds of programs to thousands of people and watched transformations take place when people learn how to honor the brain (which, by the way, honors the person to whom that brain belongs!).

What  am I talking about? 

Did you know that the brain is wired to be empathetic to people who share our racial group. This is linked to our very primal and basic need to survive (if he looks like us, he’s probably safe). We think—and say—we are sensitive to the pain of those who are not like us but the brain tells a different story. In a study that examined the empathetic pain reactions of two ethnic groups, each group was more empathetic to the “pain” of their own racial group, despite reporting a similar reaction to the other racial group’s pain. As one study [1] puts it, “Race has been demonstrated as a feature impossible to ignore in facial processing [38],[58]–[60], even when race is implicit and not relevant to the participant’s task. Thus, it is possible that race may cause an automatic and bottom-up bias in empathic neural activation to pain. It may be that the neural processing for differentiation of race operates at a more basic level than broader social distinctions. “

What they mean by “bottom-up” you can think of as unconscious or automatic behavior. Another way of putting it is the brain has made a choice without your involvement. And that unconscious choice is informing your behavior. When you understand what is happening, you can begin to employ tactics to overcome this kind of automatic brain functioning. This is particularly of value when you look at what is happening in current day America.

Another fundamental idea we work with is based on Evian Gordon’s 1-2-4 Integrate Model [2]. The “1” in Evan’s model refers to the brain’s “primary organizing principle,” which is to minimize danger and maximize reward. This principle leans strongly to the favor of minimizing danger and is a powerful example of our dominant need to survive. It also links back to Matt’s work in that many of the dangers we face are social, rather than physical, in nature. And these social threats place us in a state of conspicuously low cognitive functioning.

In essence, we become automatic when faced with “social threats” and end up doing and saying things that don’t often work in our favor—although they do keep us alive, from the brain’s perspective.

We help leaders and managers learn how to better manage social threats, maintain cognitive functioning AND improve the nature of their interactions so they achieve the things that are most important to them.

Put another way, it’s not just about surviving—it’s about truly living.

________

[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084001

[2] The integrate model of emotion, thinking and self regulation: an application to the “paradox of aging”. Journal of integrative neuroscience, 7 (3), 367-404.

Nuanced leadership

/0 Comments/in /by

girl giving candyI often think managing people is not THAT hard. Then again, anytime you involve one more person in anything, it gets a little (or a lot) more complicated. Trust me. I’m one of seven siblings (not to mention that first wife).

But I really do believe managing people is not that hard. It’s just not that easy either. And therein lies the nuance.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines Nuance as:

1: a subtle distinction or variation
2: a subtle quality
3: sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)

Those of you who know me know I work in the field of leadership and talent development, leveraging research from the field of neuroscience. (Some people think neuroscience–and neuroleadership–is a fad; I think the brain is here to stay.) As I’ve come to understand basic brain functioning, I’ve come to better understand and appreciate human behavior and performance.

To me, everything about the brain (and life) is about duality–with a nuance. While I would like to look at things in black and white terms, I can’t ignore the grey (just look at what is happening with the current state of race relations in the USA–so much polarity, so little connection).

What do I mean by duality in the brain?

  • Prefrontal cortex “versus” the Limbic System
  • Problem-focus or Future-focus
  • Negative or Positive
  • Conscious or Non-conscious
  • Serial or Parallel (processing)

And in life?

  • Good and Bad
  • Yin and Yang
  • Heaven and Hell
  • Winning and Losing
  • Chocolate and Broccoli

(My 5-year old son added that last one.)

I’m sure you can think of some, too.

So what’s the point?

The point is, in the brain (and it seems in life) negative has the much stronger team. Minimally, it’s stacked 5 to 1 in favor of threat.I call it a “losing battle.” And that makes sense when you realize the brain’s “primary organizing principle” is to minimize threat and maximize reward–with the dominant focus to minimize threat (Evian Gordon, 1-2-4 Integrate model). It’s our human survival mechanism. Stay away from danger.

As a leader (and human), if you’re not aware of this driving force, you can easily come at things from a negative vantage point, despite the alternative. And while it is natural and “feels” normal, it’s a limiting approach.

What’s the answer?

As mentioned in my post “Our own worst enemy,” it’s about strengthening your self-awareness muscles (you can also call it presence, mindfulness, interoception, social cognition) and improving your brain’s braking system (Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex).

What’s the link?

If you get better at noticing perceived threats/dangers and can “catch” the limbic system’s reaction, you can begin to “brake” against the brain’s choice and make a more informed (thoughtful) choice.

I often like to ask, “Who’s in charge? You or your brain?”

It’s amazing how often it’s your brain.

Take charge.

Tame your brain.

Leadership Resources

/0 Comments/in /by
  • "Emotional Intelligence," Daniel Goleman
  • "Lincoln on Leadership," Donald T. Phillips
  • "First, Break All The Rules," Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman
  • "The First 90 Days," Michael Watkins
  • "Developing the Leaders Around Us," John C. Maxwell
  • “The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership,” John C. Maxwell
  • "The 21 Most Powerful Minutes in a Leader’s Day,” John C. Maxwell
  • "The Path: Creating Your Mission Statement for Work and for Life," Laurie Beth Jones
  • "What Got You Here Won’t Get You There," Marshall Goldsmith with Mark Reiter