Management and neuroscience: Some words of caution

Excellent points about the use of neuroscience in the business world were made in an article in the current edition of Business Week titled "The Business Brain in Close-Up." First, the question was asked: "Can neuroscience offer insights into the 'soft' art of leadership?" Perhaps the answer depends upon how you define art.

In zoos across the country, elephants, rhinos, and other animals have been painting.

• View some elephant paintings
• Watch a video of elephants painting
• See elephant paintings and how they create them

Is what these animals creating art? Perhaps as much as understanding the brain will help to improve management skills and leadership.

Looking at the brain's workings without considering the mind and human self-awareness falls very short of the complete picture. Dr. Jeffery Schwartz, one of the co-organizers of the NeuroLeadership Summit mentioned in the article, is quoted . . .

Schwartz says he hopes managers will be receptive to his attempts "to create a new language for self-awareness."

Yes, the new science, what we are learning about the brain, is very exciting and helpful to both businesses and the service professions, including lawyers. What is the most exciting? I believe it is the "new language" Schwartz highlights.

That new language can help those in management and leadership positions to realize that

mindful, focused attention on new management practices, rather than on old habits, can rewire the brain.

The new language is not only exciting but essential.

Purposeful, focused rewiring is self-directed neuroplasticity, a phrase first used by Schwartz; he describes the process in his book The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. (In the past, I have blogged at idealawg about self-directed neuroplasticity, and at Brains On Purpose™.)

If we are not in control of the brain's rewiring, then learning about the brain's behavior is partial knowledge. Without the ability to sculpt the brain consciously through self-awareness, we are not able to effectively adopt new management and leadership practices. The two — self-awareness and brain knowledge — go hand in hand. If we possess only the latter without the former, we are akin to painting pachyderms.

Another point was made by Warren Bennis in the article.

"It's full of possibilities," says University of Southern California leadership sage Warren Bennis, who has long been interested in neuroscience's lessons for leaders. "What worries me is people being taken in by the language of it and ending up with stuff we've known all along."

I think one of the valuable contributions neuroscience can make is that it proves as valid practices and beliefs that in the past have seemed intuitively accurate or that have worked when used. One of several benefits of the proof is that even skeptics (of which there are a large group in the legal profession) can see the validity of what they have been asked, before the neuroscience research, to take on faith.

A final point on which I would like to comment. The article includes another potential problem: Interpreting the science too rigidly, and forgetting that all brains are not the same. The author does not point out this potential problem but includes a quote that could lead to that kind of rigid, one-size-fits-all interpretation. She writes . . .

One insight: Focus on just three goals to "quiet all the background noise in the brain," says [Jim] Smalley. The brain . . can hold only a few ideas at a time in its working memory.

From several recent articles about the working memory, including "How The Brain And An IPhone Differ: Researchers Fine-tune Theories On How Short-term Memory Works" in ScienceDaily, we learn that some researchers think the number may  be not three but four, and that this ability varies from individual to individual. Yes, "a few ideas at a time" is probably accurate but let's be careful about assigning one number and for all brains.

"The Business Brain In Close-Up" is a good article that serves to provide several cautionary messages about neuroscience, both about the criticism it receives and the insight it provides.

Note (added July 16, 2007, 8:05 PM Mountain): A related post on neuroscience and common sense by colleague Ellen Weber at Brain Based Business.

Note (added July 16, 2007, 9:00 PM Mountain): Another related post — on Trusted Advisor Associates: Is Neuroleadership More Than Reinventing Wheels?

Note (added July 20, 2007, 9:34 AM Mountain): Still another related post. This one by Rob May at BusinessPundit.com entitled NeuroLeadership? I Don't Think So.

Note (added July 20, 2007, 7:18 PM Mountain): And read Michael McKinney's post Neuroleadership and You at LeadingBlog.

Note (added July 21, 2007, 12:45 PM Mountain): David Piccione weighs in with NeuroLeadership? Not. Leadership is About What Happens Outside the Brain, Not in it.

Note (added April 10, 2008, 1:50 PM Mountain): A must-watch video of an elephant painting a self-portrait. Hat tip to Elegant Solutions.

Comments

[Sims Wyeth]

I have heard David Rock speak at the Penn Club in Newark, NJ, and was intrigued by his work.

I do recall one of his points--that we all use our brains differently.

He showed an MRI image of six brains reading the word "Blue" printed in green. Each brain was lit up in a different way. In other words, each person was making sense of the puzzle by accessing not the same area of the brain, but different areas of the brain.

For me, the implication was that we are all so distinct that personality profiling--such as DISC and Meyers Brigss--is barking up the wrong tree.

While it was a dramatic image, (green, red, and yellow patches glowing in random patterns in the structure of the brains)the thought occurred to me that it was no big deal.

If I figure out the simple puzzle using sites x, y, and z of my brain, while you accomplish the same task using sites a, b, and c of your brain, what does it mean?

If the brain is plastic, it could mean that we sculpted our brains to work that way based on our own unique experience.

So, we use our brains in highly personal ways. We are mysteriously and powerfully individual. Unique--each one of us. There's a new thought!

If we think about these findings in terms of the leadership and influence of men, it seems to me the essential skill lies in the ability to read others and regulate yourself.

This takes me right back to Aristotle's rhetoric, which says that a leader needs ethos, pathos, and logos.

Ethos (from which we get our word ethics)means that we need to be trusted by our followers, or by those we seek to influence.

Pathos (empathy) means we need to understand the emotions of others, and appeal to them in our communications.

And finally, logos (knowledge, expertise) we need to know what we're talking about.

Two-thirds of this ancient wisdom focuses on reading and coping with the inner workings of ourselves and others.

Hell is other people. I think Dorothy Parker said that. It's hellish to relate to people who think differently. But it's the journey of self-knowledge we're all on.

What else is there?

[StephanieWestAllen]

Thanks very much for your comment, Sims. As you know, if you read idealawg and also Brains On Purpose, I get impatient with one-size-fits-all measures and methods. I so agree with what you say about uniqueness. Along those lines, I think you would enjoy the book _Brain Sculpture_ by Ian Robertson. He talks about how our brains are scultped as does Jeff Schwartz in _The Mind and the Brain_. I always recommend that people read both of those books. I honestly believe Robertson deserves to be more known than he is.

I think the most important factor in self-knowledge is where we choose to put our attention. And knowing that we have that choice of what we to attend to — so we purposely sculpt our brains. And thus have brains on purpose. The power of attention and choice is addressed here:
http://www.thecompletelawyer.com/volume3/issue3/article.php?ppaid=2076
Even though that article is written for law students, it has general application. Would love to hear your thoughts.

I think we are expressing similar ideas, just using different words.

Regarding MBTI and DiSC, I am not a big fan of any self-report instrument. (I recently blogged about that here.) I do think they have value when taken in groups to remind people that we are different, but not much else.