Canadian HR Reporter

STRATEGIC CAPABILITY NETWORK'S PANEL of thought leaders brings decades of experience from the senior ranks of Canada's business community. eir commentary puts HR management issues into context and looks at the practical implications of proposals and policies. CANADIAN HR REPORTER September 18, 2017 EXECUTIVE SERIES 9 www.scnetwork.ca Join our professional community of Canadian HR & Organizational Leaders: • Connecting @ monthly events • Collaborating with peers • Challenging conventional thinking The Power of Human Capital CULTIVATING LEADERSHIP FOR 35 YEARS Great Leaders GROW www.scnetwork.ca Brain science challenges conventions Four SCNetwork members discuss Dalton Kehoe's recent presentation Tracey White: Dalton Kehoe provided a simple model to understand complex brain science that is rocking the social sciences and challeng- ing our notions of economics, business and management. His rider and elephant metaphor off ers a mental image that illustrates the growing understanding of how our brains work. A worldview that rests on the concept of rationality has been around since the Enlightenment. But, neuroscience is discovering our brains don't function that way at all. Rather than being single-mind- ed, unemotional and detached, we have two minds. e familiar, "ra- tional" thinking is our conscious mind at work. Kehoe likens this to a rider sitting atop an elephant — our unconscious, emotional mind. It's also called thinking fast and slow. Neuroscience long ago reject- ed the idea that humans are un- emotional and detached. Kehoe showed us how the nature of our organizations and management behaviour are not aligned to the way our brains operate. We are creatures of connection. Persistent, positive connection creates trust that, in turn, drives engagement at work. Wow, are we getting it wrong. Silvia Lulka: How many times have we heard someone say, "If only our teams, bosses, spouses or kids came with an owner's manual?" To me, that's one of the great things about neuroscience — it is as close as we've come to us having an owner's manual for ourselves and other people. Kehoe's presentation was full of interesting research about our brains, how we actually experi- ence the world around us, how we think, feel, process informa- tion and make connections with each other. It provided the science to validate what we've known for decades about what engages hu- man beings. As he said, we are creatures of connection, and yet so much of traditional organiza- tions don't refl ect that. I also found it fascinating to hear him explain the neuroscience on just how negative control-cen- tred structures impact us. ey are entirely counterproductive and do the exact opposite of what we intend them to do. It's a topic that feels daunting. After all, research shows that much of what we've considered standard management practice isn't attuned to how our brains are wired. I am left in a place asking what I can do. So, my challenge to all of us is this: How can we make a conscious eff ort every day to pur- posefully connect with someone at work, especially as managers and leaders of people? Paul Pittman: It's always satis- fying to have science tell us why we do things and Kehoe certainly did that for many in the audience. I once had a boss who when faced with a tough choice would go with the gut reaction or the emotional preference, but would then use the technique of questioning her- self as to why she had jumped to that particular conclusion. In other words, she attempted to objectively rationalize her ini- tial emotional impression to make sure there was logic behind it. It's a good discipline that I continue to use. e science lesson was insight- ful, but I came away with few practical tools. e examples used to demonstrate the benefi ts of en- gagement that stem from mindful management seemed familiar and were not all successful examples of increased connection. For instance, employee loyalty at United States grocery chain Wegman's, a family-owned-and- operated business, is likely not the result of intentional interven- tion. Family-run businesses have higher levels of engagement (as traditionally measured) because employees are typically treated like family and, consequently, employ deeper screening for fi t (meaning entry into the family). ose who have been success- ful in leadership, in negotiating roles or labour relations, now have a scientific validation for their trusted techniques. Bees re- ally do come to honey. And, as for SCNetwork, we have no trouble with connectivity, as we saw from the enthusiastic participation in the exercises. Kehoe presented a timely and excellent perspective that should inform contemporary perfor- mance assessment and even compensation. ere is no doubt human beings have always re- sponded to "emotional signals" in the way he suggests. For earlier generations, many of whom had experienced military service, the largely condemned command-and-control-style lead- ership was expected in the work- place. Whether more productivity could have been achieved in those times, with a greater understand- ing of connectivity, we will never know but, nonetheless, it was not uncommon for boomers to do things "for the company" or hear from them that "the company's interests come fi rst." Today's younger workers, de- spite our eff orts, may not carry such a deep commitment to "company" because of the eco- nomic reality in which they fi nd themselves. Connections, there- fore, need to be formed in diff er- ent ways through leadership and teams using mindful management to trigger similar emotions. As Kehoe suggested, enormous sums of money have been spent trying to improve engagement, without really moving the needle. is causes me to question wheth- er the way we have elected to mea- sure engagement is actually a true refl ection of employee sentiment. Kehoe's view is that the more we invest in relationships, the more business will succeed, to prove that someone needs to cor- relate the direct impact of engage- ment improvement activities on business results where all other extraneous factors have been neutralized. White: I agree, Paul. New tech- nologies are driving the commod- itization of work and it is changing attitudes towards employers. Too frequently, the attitude of younger workers is seen as a lack of com- mitment or loyalty, but that's a misreading of current economic conditions. A just-in-time workforce, pow- ered by technology, working in teams located across the world, is a business reality. ere's no doubt this change has impacted the nature of employee engage- ment. Loyalty is something very diff erent for millennials than for their boomer parents. I thought Kehoe's discussion of Google's attempt to shift manage- ment norms was instructive. We profi led Google at SCNetwork in 2013. What's unique about their approach is the use of coaching and peer review. Managers focus on talent development while per- formance assessment comes in a 360-degree fashion. Google has conducted significant research into the functioning of teams to maximize collaboration, creativ- ity and innovation. As we'll see at upcoming events, new technologies are facilitating teamwork and completely chang- ing how work gets done. Research from the most productive orga- nizations already demonstrates that the ability to connect with co-workers to innovate and cre- ate value is a diff erentiator. Michael Clark: Gratitude is owed to Kehoe and his neurosci- ence fellow travellers for supply- ing the evidence that our heuris- tic-based best practices for em- ployee engagement are valid. Sil- via, what a great metaphor: " e owner's manual." ough I have to say it's a manual without a detailed "troubleshooting" chapter. I have to agree with Paul: I emerged with few practical tools that I'm not already using and promoting. We come back to the origi- nal problem, though. Long ago, we human capital practitioners sensed that humans are more powerfully wired for connection at an emotional level than a ratio- nal level. We have spent decades with our more-or-less fl imsy heu- ristics trying, and largely failing, to lead our organizations to value and, importantly, reward employ- ees who bring that quality to their interactions. e question is: How can we le- verage this evidence with organi- zational decision-makers and in- fl uencers to create more eff ective human capital policy, particularly around engagement? Perhaps our fi rst step is to realize our CEOs have elephants, too. When engaging "up," how can we tap into the emotional facet of executives — their fears and de- sires — to lead them to be a value- speaking elephant throughout the organization? PANELLISTS: • Michael Clark, director of business development at Forrest & Company in Toronto • Tracey White, owner and managing director at Strategy in Action in Toronto • Paul Pittman, founder and president of the Human Well in Toronto • Silvia Lulka, director of coaching at Rogers Communications in Toronto Paul Pittman Michael Clark Tracey White Silvia Lulka Dalton Kehoe provided the science to validate what we've known for decades.

• Cover