[teampractices] Supporting collaboration through neuroscience

Fri Oct 21 22:36:44 UTC 2016

I found this information very familiar, and like to see it spelled out (and
especially appreciate the summaries you both emailed); it's like finding a
Wikipedia article about that thing you know or discovered and realizing
you're not alone in your thoughts/approaches/the universe.

I wonder if this could be an effective opener to an offsite (or similar
facilitation experience), along with what I call "Trust Buckets"
(categories of trust, derived from The Trust Equation
<http://trustedadvisor.com/why-trust-matters/understanding-trust/understanding-the-trust-equation>)
and "Communications Styles that Bug People
<https://books.google.com/books?id=bHJ3vhtm2uwC&lpg=PA139&ots=-moMCeTflm&dq=Communications%20Styles%20that%20Bug%20People&pg=PA140#v=onepage&q=Communications%20Styles%20that%20Bug%20People&f=false>."
Having a group explore, even for 5 minutes, that there are distinct
components to trust, and that their colleagues value the components
differently, is an effective way to, fittingly, build trust and prime the
group for a day of constructive communication. Similarly, showing a group a
list of common communication styles that irritate people, and asking them
to identify what they agree with and what they themselves do, is an
effective way to bring awareness to a group about the underlying things
that contribute to communication challenges.

I think an introduction to the SCARF model, adapted for a 5 minute check-in
or exercise, could be useful for priming a group for self-awareness ahead
of deeper conversations with one another. If you wanted to put this entire
idea into meta-SCARF terms, I'd venture that a SCARF check-in would be an
example of increasing Relatedness ("you might feel this way while
communicating, because many people's brains tend to follow this
structure"), and Autonomy and Certainty ("now that you're aware of this
model, you can act on what was previously ambiguous in your communication
experience, for your forthcoming communication experience").

Or, as the article put it (and Kristen pointed out already), "For
minimizing threats, knowing about the domains of SCARF helps one to label
and reappraise experiences that might otherwise reduce performance."

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kristen Lans <klans at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Thank you for sharing this Arthur. I found the SCARF model to be
> profoundly useful as a frame for understanding some of the dynamics at play
> in my day to day work. For example, based on this model, I can see why some
> facilitation techniques I use reliably work well (by helping to equalize
> Status and increase Certainty), and why it’s sometimes difficult to think
> straight when interacting with people in positions of authority (Status
> threat!).
>
> In a world where we may be unwittingly going around triggering each
> others’ basic survival responses and jamming up our cognitive functioning,
> it becomes more clear why collaboration can be so difficult at times. It’s
> also heartening to understand some ways that we can create better work
> environments by reducing threats and increasing rewards.
>
> The notion of creating a less socially threatening work environment
> brought to mind the NY Times article about what Google learned about
> successful teams
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html>
> (shared on this list in February: “[teampractices] [FYI] connection between
> great teams and psychological safety”). While I found the Times article
> incredibly interesting, the conclusion that establishing “psychological
> safety” is the key to great teams left me hanging a bit. To me the, the
> SCARF paper bridged the gap between “psychological safety is a good thing
> for teams!” and “...and here’s some practical ways to lay the foundations
> for establishing that safety”. Indeed, I went back and read the Times
> article with the SCARF frame in mind, and found the concepts presented in
> both works to be complementary.
>
> I found myself wondering about the relative importance of the domains (S,
> C, A, R, and F) to individuals. I’ve seen early career individuals calmly
> and casually pitching their ideas to executives with seemingly no
> sensitivity to Status, but spiraling into self-destructive behavior when
> their sense of Fairness is threatened. It looks like the SCARF paper
> authors wonder about this as well (“Do people vary in the importance of the
> 5 domains, and if so are there patterns across men and women, age groups or
> cultures?” (p.8)). I also wonder how this model applies across the range of
> neurodiversity.
>
> Anyway, lots of good juicy stuff here! Here are some of my favorite quote
> nuggets from the pdf of the article:
>
> On Status:
>
> “It can be surprisingly easy to accidentally threaten someone’s sense of
> status. A status threat can occur through giving advice or instructions, or
> simply suggesting someone is slightly ineffective at a task. Many everyday
> conversations devolve into arguments driven by a status threat, a desire to
> not be perceived as less than another. When threatened, people may defend a
> position that doesn’t make sense, to avoid the perceived pain of a drop in
> status.” (p.4)
>
> “In most people, the question ‘can I offer you some feedback’ generates a
> similar response to hearing fast footsteps behind you at night. Performance
> reviews often generate status threats, explaining why they are often
> ineffective at stimulating behavioral change. If leaders want to change
> others’ behavior, more attention must be paid to reducing status threats
> when giving feedback. One way to do this is by allowing people to give
> themselves feedback on their own performance.” (p.4)
>
> “While society, especially advertising and the media, would have people
> spend money in order to be ‘better than others’, it doesn’t have to be a
> zero-sum game. Status can be increased without cost to others or an effect
> on relatedness. As well as playing against oneself, one can also change the
> community one focuses on, as when a low level mailroom clerk becomes the
> coach of a junior baseball team. Or, one can change what is important, for
> example deciding that the quality of one’s work is more important than the
> quantity of one’s work.” (p.4)
>
> On Certainty:
>
> “Even a small amount of uncertainty generates an ‘error’ response in the
> orbital frontal cortex (OFC). This takes attention away from one’s goals,
> forcing attention to the error (Hedden, Garbrielli, 2006). If someone is
> not telling you the whole truth, or acting incongruously, the resulting
> uncertainty can fire up errors in the OFC. This is like having a flashing
> printer icon on your desktop when paper is jammed – the flashing cannot be
> ignored, and until it is resolved it is difficult to focus on other
> things.” (p.4)
>
> “Some examples of how to increase certainty include making implicit
> concepts more explicit, such as agreeing verbally how long a meeting will
> run, or stating clear objectives at the start of any discussion.” (p.5)
>
> On Autonomy:
>
> “Sound policy establishes the boundaries within which individuals can
> exercise their creativity and autonomy. Sound policy should enable
> individual point-of-need decision-making without
> consultation with, or intervention by, leaders. In this regard, sound
> policy hard-wires autonomy into the processes of an organization.” (p.5)
>
> Wider Implications:
>
> “For minimizing threats, knowing about the domains of SCARF helps one to
> label and reappraise experiences that might otherwise reduce performance.
> Labelling (Lieberman et al, 2007) and reappraisal (Ochsner & Gross, 2005)
> are cognitive tools that have been verified in brain studies to be
> effective techniques for reducing the threat response. These techniques
> have been shown to be more effective at reducing the threat response than
> the act of trying to suppress an emotion (Goldin et al, 2007). Knowing
> about the elements of SCARF helps one understand issues such as why you
> can’t think clearly when someone has attacked your status, instead of just
> trying to push the feeling aside.” (p.7)
>
> KL
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Arthur Richards <arichards at wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Attached is an article discussing some interesting aspects of the brain
>> that I think are useful to keep in mind when working with others -
>> particular in regards to collaboration. I found the article pretty
>> accessible (I don't normally read neuroscience journal articles and
>> generally find scienc-y academic articles hard to digest, but of course
>> ymmv).
>>
>> Here's a summary:
>> This article is by David Rock, the same author of the book I recommended
>> via the Melody Kramer's weekly round up thing a couple of weeks ago ("Your
>> Brain at Work"), but this short article focuses on one of the things I
>> found most fascinating and salient from the book: that the brain reacts to
>> social relationships similarly to how it reacts to food and water. That is,
>> social relationships create the same kinds of threat/reward responses in
>> the brain as things we typically consider basic for human survival.
>>
>> Rock breaks this down further into a model for understanding the major
>> factors of social relationships that affect threat/reward responses in the
>> brain. He calls it the 'SCARF' model:
>> * Status
>> * Certainty
>> * Autonomy
>> * Relatedness
>> * Fairness
>>
>> Threats to any of these things will result in an avoidance response
>> (increased cortisol, reduction in prefrontal cortex functioning, and more!)
>> which severely limits problem solving, creativity, positive interaction,
>> etc. The inverse is true - positively supporting each of these things
>> generates a 'toward' response, increasing problem solving ability,
>> creativity, positive interaction, etc: collaboration.
>>
>> TPGers and other good facilitators/managers/etc probably at least
>> intuitively know this to some degree or another and work with their
>> teams/groups in such a way that generally supports everyone's SCARF, but I
>> found it really revealing to better understand the biology behind it.
>>
>> In addition, by understanding this model as it relates to yourself, Rock
>> suggests that you can better manage your own responses - when reacting
>> negatively (eg from a place of reactivity rather than openness) because
>> something is threatening your autonomy, for example, you can do some small
>> thing that increases your own perception of autonomy, which can bring you
>> back into the positive state.
>>
>> Food for thought!
>>
>> PS I pulled this from a link on David Rock's website:
>> http://davidrock.net/publications/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> teampractices mailing list
>> teampractices at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> teampractices mailing list
> teampractices at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20161021/4405dac4/attachment.html>