Michael Ignatieff is Appealing to the Wrong Part of Our Brains

If the media reports are any indication, the “get rid of Michael Ignatieff” sounds are becoming louder within the Liberal party. Bring in Bob Rae is the refrain. Will this fix the Liberals dismal showing in the polls?

In that Bob Rae is more “warm and cuddly” than Michael Ignatieff, this might work. Our brains prefer such warmth. But the cost to the Liberal party could be worse. Changing leadership three times in as many years does not sit well with the electorate (“Do these guys know what they are doing?”).

A better strategy would be to work on Ignatieff’s emotional messaging before giving up the ship. He’s not tugging at our hearts enough. That stern look and holding the government accountable for a report card don’t appeal to issues that are at the heart of our evolution like survival, the care of our children and extended families and the well-being of our local communities.

Too much reason from Michael Ignatieff, not enough emotion. He’s little different from Stephen Harper who, in fact, is warming up his image and delivery and distancing himself further from the opposition. We now have a strong image of Harper “letting his hair down” playing a Beatles song on the piano with some decent singing. The Liberals have been outmaneuvered by the Conservatives on reaching the right part of our brains first---that which appeals to our emotions.

From an evolutionary perspective, we reason with our emotions first then make choices based on facts, and figures. “Emotions provide a compass that leads us toward or away from things” as psychologist Drew Westen explains in The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

“Feelings” according to Westen are millions of years older than “reason” or conscious thought processes. They are hard-wired into human brains across all cultures. The evolution of our species has predisposed us to being moved by leaders with whom we feel “an emotional resonance”.

There is a caveat. We can easily become turned off by “bad” governance---again an emotional action supported by evidence (or quasi-evidence). The morality of not having the electorate’s best interests in mind eventually costs a political leader. So too in any organization.

Get Novel with More Thinking Partnerships Like the Coen Brothers

Channel hopping led me to an interview with the Coen brothers about their new film “A Serious Man”. While I tuned in somewhat to excerpts from and discussion about the film, I was more fascinated by their mannerisms and what makes them click.

For the longest time, Ethan just hung his head as if he were someplace else while Joel answered most of the interviewer’s questions. With slumped shoulders Ethan sure wasn’t putting his best foot forward as the pros recommend for interviews. But, suddenly he lit up, sat up and went on at length in a deep academic way expanding upon the nuances of their films. Hmmm. No slouch after all.

The Coen brothers have been a tour de force for over 20 years directing and producing numerous quirky, clever, very creative and often “dark” yet popular films. What makes them tick? How do they come up with such unusual plot lines which parody life and still capture our imaginations?

They must take lots of “walks in the park”, work on being positive and are good observers of their own thinking. We have the hard science now from neuroscientists that these approaches do increase insights and the ability to see novel solutions to new problems.

The approaches combined quiet the brain allowing more holistic connections to be made. Moments of insight emerge not from working harder but from backing off to allow subtle signals to be noticed. Too much noise (anxiety, busyness, time pressure, etc.) stop novel answers from emerging.

Thinking partnerships help too. Like the Coen brothers where one brings a lot of detail to the situation and the other sees the big picture. At least that’s my impression. Looking at their background, Ethan studied philosophy. That’s a big picture abstract level of thinking. On the other hand, Joel studied film making and music video production---still very creative challenges yet more at the 1,000 foot level than the 50,000.

Google, IDEO, 3M, Southwest Airlines and many other well known and highly successful organizations leverage “insight-making” on purpose. It’s good for business as their bottom lines demonstrate. One common thread is that they make a point of having fun, a sure fire way to let out the weird and wonderful ideas.

The blueprint is clear for increasing the odds of novel thinking to make an appearance. This is no time to be shy! In this still tough environment, quieter brains must prevail to help us through.

H1N1 Up Close: Death of New Colleague's Wife Raises "Hazard Watch"

I met Steve three times at a local business networking meeting. On Tuesday, October 27 at about 9:00 am I bade him farewell along with others after we did our usual round of business. One week later (November 3) Steve sent out an email that his wife had “a raging case of pneumonia and possibly H1N1” and was in hospital. On November 5 Steve’s wife of 14 years passed away from H1N1 flu at Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga.

This is not supposed to happen, although public health officials are saying: “There will be deaths”. We are between a rock and a hard place. So is public health---the available supply and the inoculation system is out-of-synch with the real demand and the timing of the flu pathway through the population.

I know nothing of Steve’s wife’s background. Perhaps she was among the “at risk”. She was likely in her forties judging from my guesstimate of Steve’s age. Could she have been saved by more readily available vaccine?

The lock-step nature of the roll-out of the vaccine puts to the test our self-control (to be patient and wait our turn) and our sense of fairness (stories abound on people jumping the queue). Besides, how does one divide up a family according to a rather rough risk measure (some get it, some don’t in the first parts of the roll-out) and still maintain a sense of calm? So, aside from the evolving science of the disease which researchers and practitioners are working hard at keeping up with, how does an everyday person manage risk when the safety net has holes in it?

One of my dear friends who is a biochemist claims the flu is already everywhere, as it usually is during this time of year. She counsels: “Stop worrying about the rigmarole over the vaccine and just get on with life” as it’s somewhat late to get a shot. The best risk management actions remain the same—adhere to healthy living practices including the frequent washing of hands, etc.” The statistics are on our side as this is a mild flu.

Underlying our conversation, however, is not concern for ourselves. If truth be told, it’s for our families. My friend has six grandchildren ranging in age from four months to 12 years old. My children are young adults. As whole families cannot be inoculated at the same time, our “hazard watch” escalates.

Brain science reveals that we use up a tremendous amount of brain energy (glucose) to manage the uncertainties in our environment. The stress can be exhausting and leaves less energy for tackling other important parts of our professional and personal lives. The functioning of our pre-frontal cortex ramps up as it communicates with and tries to sort out and guide the emotional turmoil buried in deeper brain regions. With the H1N1 situation running at high uncertainty, calming our minds daily with good thoughts, exercise, fellowship, fun and other means of relaxing is an antidote for survival.

We shape our brains daily. This can be used to our advantage. Since 9/11 it feels as if we have lived in a chronically uncertain world. Each segment of any one year has its “signature” threats. We are learning through no choice of our own to adapt as if we are running a marathon most of the time. Anyone who has trained for a marathon knows it can be done. In a sense, we are all getting stronger and more resilient.

H1N1 Vaccine Chaos: Business Process Screw-Up

Our family doc led us to believe a couple of months ago that he’d vaccinate us against the H1N1 flu virus. He’s still waiting for his supply. In the meantime, we are being encouraged to join three to six hour line-ups coming to our “town” shortly. Someone has skipped a beat here in common sense planning.

Few if any of us pictured that we’d have to line up en masse on the basis of first come first serve for this vaccination. Make an extra visit to our local walk-in clinic or family physician—yes. According to one of our local clinics, the medical staff does not expect to be receiving any vaccine. How assumptions can be so wrong! Maybe things will change.

We are envious that Sault St. Marie has managed the process by having people book an appointment largely on line and I presume also by telephone. The real story might not be quite as streamlined as not everyone has access to the internet and many shut-ins cannot venture out to a clinic. Plus, the vastness of the north has accelerated the transition to e-records and e-communications ahead of more southerly cities and communities giving Sault Ste. Marie an advantage to start with. However, at this point in the roll-out in Southern Ontario, it is mystifying why the gap in “user-friendliness” is so huge between the north and south.

Understandably a mass vaccination of this type has never happened in anyone’s lifetime. The closest comparator is the polio epidemic in the 1950s where schools were the chief locations for inoculation. The target groups were school-age children not the general population. That then was relatively easy. However, there’s a lesson: implementation was highly de-centralized.

We are being funneled into too few spots as in a traffic jam on highway 401 when the on-ramps feed into narrower parts. I can understand that to take the pressure off the normal conduits for health care like emergency rooms, walk in clinics and primary physicians public health is providing temporary alternatives. Unfortunately, the timing is off as public health is the only source right now.

Where were the computer-modelers when we needed them?

This will get sorted out. The first time is always full of lessons learned. On the side of public health, it is likely hampered by uncertainty about vaccine supplies---how much and when available. Resources too are thin at the best of times.

Nevertheless, why some synergy has not been created at this stage with personnel at easy to access locations where there would be minimal line-ups still makes me scratch my head.

A Surge of the "Yes, and" Mantra of Comedians Would Help World Peace

I never was very good at multiple choice questions because I could always see the complexity in the situation about which I was being asked. I eventually “trained” myself to be more deductive and logical, more black and white in order to pass the tests. However, it never seemed natural.

I have since learned that my complexity style can be a blessing and a curse: a blessing to see the world from a 360 view, which can enlarge my view and make me less reactive. A curse if I am trying to be succinct and really targeted in messaging.

So, when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize out of the blue, I didn’t immediately do the “Yes, but” routine. After all, my complexity lens needed to do some thinking before passing judgment. OK. The world works in mysterious ways. Even Barack Obama was a bit taken aback!

That’s why comedians train themselves to go with the flow of an emerging situation by always saying “Yes, and” rather than “Yes, but”. They literally have to stay present in order to optimize generating the story lines. Their openness creates a richness of conversation and opportunity. The surprise becomes something constructive. Thus, I gather seeing complexity can be an asset in practicing “Yes, and”!

Both the “Yes, and” and the “Yes, but” reactions were in abundance after the Swedes awarded the Nobel to President Obama. This is the nature of our minds and our ways. In this instance, however, the former made us dig a bit deeper to better understand why the Swedes chose Obama.

As the comedian’s “improv” process catalyzes a creative and open path, so too does a world paradigm shift toward peace rather than war. The Swedes have set in action an opportunity for “improv” everywhere in the spirit of finding ways and means to world peace. The discipline of the “Yes, and” is a simple and powerful tool for discovering how to get there.

Candle Problems for Dummies: Not Apply Much Today

In his Ted.com presentation in July 2009 on motivation, Daniel Pink makes a significant point: there’s a gap between science (the evidence) and what business does. Nowhere is it more obvious than with the subject of rewards. His point: people don’t always perform better with bigger rewards. Because it depends on the problem. The more complex, the less effect an external reward. Yet, organizations, as a general rule, don’t differentiate their approaches.

The first decade of the 21st century has been bountiful in its non-routine problems, constantly surprising us and keeping us off balance. These “out of nowhere” occurrences don’t have easy solutions.

When we apply our known routines to them, the puzzles often remain. For example, the early warning system for tsunamis did little to help the people on the American Samoa Island because it was too close to the epicenter of the earthquake. Many economists saw the financial crisis coming but could not apply their collective pressure (their early warning signals) enough to influence key decision-makers. Life has definitely become more complicated. There is much more work to do to prevent and manage risk, to anticipate and to imagine.

Opening up our minds literally is the way forward. That means motivating people from within than without. Pink stresses three factors: “autonomy” (letting people direct their own work), “mastery” (having the opportunity to get better and better at what matters) and “purpose” (being involved in something beyond ourselves).

David Rock, author of Your Brain at Work, wraps up the challenge of motivation or engagement similarly in the acronym “SCARF”:

Status: praise and mastering a skill and being paid for it all boost an employee’s sense of status and by association—motivation. Threats to status like performance reviews do the opposite;

Certainty: uncertainty registers tension in the brain shutting down problem-solving ability. If leaders can create a perception of certainty, for example, by breaking down problems into small steps or by exuding the confidence that “We can do it!” the chains of uncertainty become less of a burden;

Autonomy: Many studies indicate that if people feel they are not being micro-managed, that they are able to direct their work decisions relatively freely, the more stress remains under control, the more inspired they are to do good work;

Relatedness: If individuals feel they belong (at work), they trust more and they are able to build the necessary relationships to innovate and to produce.

Fairness: Perceptions of unfairness activate hostility and undermine trust. Leaders that “do the right thing” help collaboration flourish.

As different from 20th century leadership and management, brain science in the 21st century is helping us better understand really what works. We know that threats to our well-being generate the fight or flight hormones like cortisol and adrenaline. Chronic doses of these hormones do not open up our minds to novel solutions. On the other hand, serotonin and oxytocin flood our brains when we are happy and engaged. In turn, they help us focus and undertake higher problem-solving skills.

Like evidenced-based medicine, the science of the brain is illuminating the way for “people-management”, providing the hard evidence as to why soft power works. The candle-light of soft power multiplies not only in our minds but it also generates the energy for innovation.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

http://www.brainleadersandlearners.com/

Margie's Health Care Reform Advice for President Obama

Language matters in leadership. Look at what has happened with President Obama’s use of the term “public option” for health care reform. Who would’ve have thought that hope and goodwill, the populace feelings that elevated Barack Obama to the American Presidency, would turn into fear and paranoia?

In Canada, people like Margie, who has lived many of her years without universal health coverage, knows what fear is. As a 5 year old, she watched her 8 year old sister die from diphtheria. Margie survived barely. Neither was denied access, as the incident happened in England. Back in Canada, it would be another 43 years before true universal health coverage was available to Margie and her family. In the interim, she and her husband paid full price, as you go, and later paid premiums to private health insurers to keep the costs reasonable. Her husband always managed to work out “deals” with hospitals to pay them back on a monthly basis after Margie’s hospital stays for childbirth. The financial costs for raising a family remain vivid in Margie’s mind. It was tough!

Fast forward to 2009, it is incomprehensible to Margie that the United States, one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial nations in the world, has a health “care” system like she experienced in Canada 40 odd years ago.

But, Margie is a political “junkie”, having studied political science at University (she graduated with her degree when she was 55!). After having watched closely the debates and the rhetoric, Margie has an idea.

Stop talking about “public option”. Start communicating the message that a system will be created to allow 47 million or so American citizens without coverage to buy into an “affordable option”. Assure the majority that has health coverage that nothing will change. That is, there will be nothing lost. Improvements will be made as is typical for any system. Life will go on as usual. No worries.

Well, Margie knows it’s not quite that simple, because the costs in the existing health insurance system are spiraling out of control. Critics worry about a “parallel” system competing with a “public option”. Margie thinks that sounds strange for a society that prides itself on competition. Whatever! Borrowing a phrase from the grandkids! Furthermore, how can coverage for 47 million more be financed?

Margie says: “One step at a time”. That’s how it was done in Canada. Tommy Douglas, who spearheaded the reform, started small---Saskatchewan. That “pilot” evolved over a few decades. It’s hard to implement full-scale change. Much easier to begin “where the love is”, learn as you go and, build “buy-in.