Leaders operate in high-pressure environments that demand quick decision-making, adaptability and resilience. Understanding the brain’s cognitive processes - how it handles risk, creativity, stress and motivation - can help them enhance their leadership skills, drive innovation and build mental resilience for long-term success, writes Dr Phyllis Ndlovu, CEO of Kisima Psychological Services.
Gaining a rudimentary knowledge of the brain’s basic architecture is important to help leaders understand their responses in different situations. The primary purpose of this basic architecture is to keep human beings alive. This is why our brains continuously scan the environment for what they perceive to be potential threats, often not on a conscious level.
Understanding the brain’s social response
Notably, our brains do not distinguish between physical and social threats, and our capacity to make decisions, solve problems and collaborate with others is generally reduced by what our brain perceives as a threat, while by contrast when the brain is not threatened and at ease, it functions optimally.
A threat can be something as seemingly innocuous as an eyebrow raised in what seems like a judgemental way or someone asking a question we don’t feel qualified to answer. If the brain perceives this as a threat, it will go into self-preservation mode and this will elicit a flight, fight or freeze response.
We constantly oscillate between the rational thinking mode when we are at ease and we are not feeling threatened, and the mode of self-preservation when a physical or social threat is perceived. In teamwork, the same brain architecture is at play in all our interactions, which is why leaders need to be able to recognise their own and others’ actions in response to different scenarios.
Awareness of social threats is important, given recent statistics on communication. In human engagement across race, gender, age and other diversity elements, only 7% of communication is conducted verbally, with 93% being non-verbal. Of the 93% non-verbal communication, 55% involves facial expressions, body language and hand gestures, while 38% is about tone of voice.
This means that people who say nothing can be just as “loud” - through their non- verbal demeanour - as those who talk a lot. In this context self-preservation can be strongly activated by people who appear to be disinterested or disengaged.
The intention versus impact dilemma
Leaders might have the best of intentions when communicating with their teams and stakeholders, but they may not be aware of how their behaviour impacts others. This is aptly explained by Patrick Bird’s Arc of Distortion model, which suggests there is often a discrepancy between leaders’ impact and their intention.
This is because intention is hidden in the leader’s head and heart. Nobody sees the intention; rather employees and colleagues respond to the impact the leader has on them, and how he or she makes them feel.
We all judge ourselves based on our intentions, but we are evaluated by others based on our behaviour. This is because they cannot see our intention, therefore we all evaluate each other on double standards – which is why employees judge leaders on the behaviour they consistently see.
Bearing all of this in mind, how can leaders improve the impact they have on their organisation?
Best practice suggests that giving and receiving feedback helps leaders and their teams to narrow their individual gap between intention and impact, improve overall impact on each other, thereby improving the work environment as well as their ability to achieve organisational goals.
To begin with, this practice can be intimidating, but when it becomes part of the organisational culture, it is a powerful enabler. Leaders and their teams can consider setting aside time and space for giving and receiving feedback to and from each other. The following structure for such stock-take discussions is suggested:
Over the past quarter:
- What is one positive impact that team member X has made to the team
- What is one area of improvement for team member X
- How can the team support team member X’s improve their impact on the team
The three statements are meant as open and honest feedback to each team member, with that team member X remaining silent and taking in the feedback without responding. It is only once everyone has given their feedback that team member X can share his or her experience of that feedback and commit to what is a reasonable way forward.
Initially, teams can benefit from this activity being facilitated, until it is normalised as part of the team’s culture. A key benefit to the exercise is that it creates an atmosphere for leaders and employees to better understand each other and therefore become more willing to collaborate and explore new ideas, without the fear of judgement or misinterpretation.
