Category: Emotional Intelligence

In our corporate work, we often talk about “engagement” and the drivers of an engaged workforce (committed, present, proactive).  I was thinking about how parents sometimes are “under-engaged” (passive) and other times we are over-engaged (enmeshed).  It’s a very challenging balance, and perhaps it’s at the heart of being an emotionally intelligent parent.

First, to clarify what I mean, I made this little graphic:

Some essential questions:

Where are you, and where is your partner/coparent if any?

When you lean too far over to one side or another… which side?  Why?  What needs of your own are pushing you there?

What’s in the middle?  What’s it like for you, your child(ren), and other family members when you are in the middle?

What would it take for you to hang out in the middle more often?

 

The the moment, I’m just left of center.   Patty probably leans a little toward to the right.

When I’m out of balance here, usually it’s leaning toward disconnection.  I find the chaos of family life sometimes overwhelming, and my pattern is to withdraw – to here, on my computer.  I tell myself I have important work to do, but often it’s just escaping to a quiet place where I can be “in charge” (ha).

In the middle I feel more alive as a parent.  I’m able to step back and watch my kids growing, treasuring that, without feeling that their mistakes are somehow “my fault” … and without feeling any need to take ownership of their successes.  In the middle, I can set up boundaries and guard rails, and let them have immense freedom within those parameters.  I can be more proactive and less reactive.  I think they find it more challenging, but in a positive way.

For me to be in the middle more often, I think I need to let go of “doing something” and focus more on “being someone” — I tell myself that I need to have a plan or activity to engage, but that’s probably a way of avoiding the feeling of chaos.  The truth is, a certain level of chaos is actually fine if I remind myself that this isn’t going to “spin out of control” because I can monitor for that and take charge if needed.

Your turn!

According to David J. S. Winfield, the former Executive Director of International Centre for Leadership in Finance (ICLIF), “Malaysian CEOs are no different from global CEOs in terms of leadership ability … But on closer examination, emotional intelligence and coaching are the lowest in Malaysia.”

Six Seconds Malaysia supports the growth of the Malaysian economy by delivering best-in-class Emotional Intelligence (EQ) solutions to help advance the people-side of performance in organizations and communities. Powered by an experienced team of professionals with invaluable support from its extensive global network, Six Seconds Malaysia aims to be the leading provider of cutting-edge EQ solutions and educational resources in Malaysia.

The Six Seconds Malaysia team is led by Country Director, FC Law, who has over 20 years of extensive sales and marketing experience. He specializes in strengthening sales and service cultures through powerful EQ-anchored programs. FC is assisted by Sally Goh (Research & Curriculum), Christine Doyle (Communications), Julie Lai (Administration), and Bernie Lee and Hendry Cheah (Client Services).

Six Seconds Malaysia offers Six Seconds scientifically-validated EQ performance tools, transformational workshops and people-centered consultancy throughout the country. In keeping with the global mission of Six Seconds in spreading positive change and impacting communities, Six Seconds Malaysia will also support the growth of social emotional learning among stakeholders in local education.

 

For more information about Six Seconds, please visit the global site at www.6seconds.org – Six Seconds Malaysia will be online in the regional site at www.6seconds-sea.com

What does it mean to feel, and what does it happen?  Today, most people see emotions as “good” or “bad” — which leaves us in a constant state of internal struggle against our own feelings.  Is there another option?  And how did we come to this point?

Imagine the “archetypal” child and parent; let’s take a boy, about eight years old.  His parent is busy dealing with 3.3 million tasks and chores, it’s been a long day and everyone’s on thin ice.  The child is going about the business of childhood and something happens – almost irrelevant what it is, perhaps his Wii stops working and, unsurprisingly, he gets upset — it’s been a long day for him too.  Let’s suppose he’s highly upset, unreasonably upset, and acts that out: he slams something down, he kicks something, he shouts, and overwhelmed by this rush of feelings (and afraid of his parent’s reaction) he starts to cry.

What is the parent’s typical reaction?

Perhaps asking a question, perhaps comforting, but more likely dismissing:  “Stop crying honey, it’s not that big a deal.”  “You shouldn’t get so angry.”  Or even the absolute dad-classic:  “Knock it off or I’ll give you something to cry about.”

What did the child just learn about these feelings?

What have you learned about these kinds of feelings – feelings like anger, fear, hurt, or jealousy?

Around the world, people have told me much the same thing:  Those are “negative” feelings.  Even “bad” feelings.  We find them uncomfortable, overwhelming, scary, out-of-control (and now we’re having “bad feelings” about our “bad feelings”).

So, the natural, reasonable, response to something bad?  Control it.  Push it away.  Cover it over.  Squish it.  Or at the very least, hide it.  Maybe after some therapy, “manage” it.

What about embracing it? 

Increasingly we’re happy to do that with “positive” emotions — the current fad is that if we’re not flooding our families, schools, and offices with bliss then perhaps we’re just mean (because “happiness” is seen as ideal).  But even this attitude is fraught with judgment; we’re limiting the motivating power of feelings to a select few.  We’re deciding that some emotions are good… which requires that others are bad.

In the last 14 years of teaching about emotions as a driver for positive change, I’ve come to consider that this vilification of our own emotion is the single biggest obstacle to emotional intelligence.

So I’d like to propose a different way of thinking about emotions. First, let’s explore an intriguing model from a scientist named Robert Plutchik.

Plutchik studied the way animals experience, express, and respond to emotions.  He saw, following in Darwin’s tradition, that there is an adaptive purpose to emotion.  Feelings help animals survive by alerting them to threats and opportunities, and by providing a universal, cross-species communication mechanism.  If you’ve ever heard the angry snarl of a wolf, or been enchanted by a puppy’s playful grin, you’ll understand this viscerally.

Plutchik proposed a model of eight basic emotions that each has a physiological response.  He said that each of these could be more or less intense, and they could combine.  They are portrayed as opposites because they provoke opposite physiological responses:

 There are many different ways of defining emotions, but researchers in this “adaptive” tradition tend to see that these basic physiological responses each serves a different survival need and (a) focuses our attention to a threat or opportunity, and (b) motivates a response.

Anger, for example, is a signal that our pathway is blocked.  We want to be promoted, we perceive someone is interfering with that, we are angry at the person.  The anger serves to focus our attention on the threat and motivates a response of fighting or pushing through the obstacle.

Here is a chart of the eight basic emotions and a likely description of the focus and motivation provided:

We can use this table to “decode” our emotional experiences. It shows us that emotions serve a purpose, that there is value in all feelings.  But it’s still easy to say that some are “negative” because they’re tied to problems or threats.

We can try to remove the judgment and call some of these “pleasant” or “unpleasant,” but that doesn’t quite work:  Sometimes when I think my son is defying me, it feels very pleasant to express my anger.  When my dad died, it felt right (not exactly pleasant, but good-hard) to feel sad.

Another approach is to characterize them as “contracting” versus “expanding.”  Feelings tied to problems narrow our attention and cause use to zero-in on the issues, to slow us down, to restrict our risks.  At the other end, some feelings energize us to look outward, to become more open, and to take risks.  Of all the “polar” characterizations this is my preference because it’s genuinely non-judgmental.  However, I’d like to go a step further.

In Buddhism, and many other faith traditions, there is a notion of “non-duality.”  Rather than good and bad as opposites, they can be seen as one, a whole with balancing sides.  This is visually represented in the yin-yang symbol.  In that graphic, the universe (a circle) is half and half… but not actually divided.  The black and white are interlocked – they are one circle with two aspects.

Could we take a non-dualistic view of emotion?

Rather than characterizing feelings as opposites (good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, contracting/expanding), is there a way to see them as a linked whole?  Often people in my work describe emotions on a continuum – a spectrum from one extreme to another, taking an emotion and it’s opposite as ends of the number line.  This has some merit because we’re starting to link them as part of a whole, but it’s still dualistic:  There are positive and negative integers on the number line.

Let’s go back to the definition of anger:  You feel angry when you want to go someplace, but your way is blocked.

So anger arises from that sense of an obstacle. What, then, could we call that feeling of “wanting to go someplace”?  Perhaps anticipation?  Or maybe commitment is a more powerful version of that word?

In that case, we could say that there is actually no such thing as anger without commitment: If you don’t want to go anywhere, you won’t get angry!  In other words, they are not two separate things:  Anger only exists in contrast, in balance, in context of commitment.

How about fear?  Fear is a message of potential threat – a signal that something you care about is at risk… so if you don’t care, you won’t feel fear.  In other words, fear and caring (aka love) are also a non-duality.

Sorrow arises when you are losing someone or something that matters – a meaningful relationship, a significant person.  But when we feel that sense of meaning and significance, we experience it as joy.

Finally, disgust is a signal of violation.  It means rules are broken, agreements at risk, the systems and structures of relationship are in peril.  Yet if we did not feel trust in those very same things, if they did not signal a sense of safety and balance, then we wouldn’t care if they were imperiled.

At this point, I’m fairly content with a hypothesis of these constructs – not as opposites, but as wholes.  The dark and the light of the candle.  Yet I find them a little awkward because I don’t have a name for them.

I’ve been thinking about this problem for several years, and recently I heard an idea that I’d like to consider.  I was privileged to be on a panel with Dan Shapiro, a professor at Harvard Law & Medical Schools, and the co-author of Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate.  The conference was on emotional and spiritual intelligence in negotiation at Harvard Law School.

In describing the challenge of first identifying – and then actually dealing with emotions in the complex dance of negotiation, Dan’s succinct summary:  “It’s really tough!”  So his proposal is to notice emotion, but to go to a deeper question:  What’s the basic need driving the emotion?  Since there are a relatively small number of basic needs, perhaps five, it may be easier to handle this set.  If we can attend to these five basic needs, Shapiro’s compelling case is that it’s far more likely that a true negotiation will arise.

Typically when talking about basic needs, the premise is that a whole range of emotions will surface in response to a need being met or not met.  In Nonviolent Communication, Marshall Rosenberg and colleagues have done wonderful work illustrating these dynamics.  Hearing Shapiro use basic needs as a way of explaining the emotional dynamics of negotiation, I wondered if we could look at the “emotional non-dualities” through this lens:

Anger-Commitment is tied to wanting to move, a need to achieve. It’s pretty easy to see that this emotion-pair arises in conjunction with a basic need that could be called accomplishment.

When we feel Disgust-Trust, it means the social contract that produces order is vulnerable (this contact can be within ourselves, and when we violate our own precepts we feel disgust turned inward).  While fear also signals risk, it’s not usually tied to the contract but to the human implication. And it’s trust that signals safety; so perhaps the specific surety of trust balances with a specific peril of disgust, in which case this construct is tied to the basic need of safety.

While the Fear-Love dynamic can arise a connection with an inanimate object (fear of losing a home), I suspect it’s most deeply rooted in a desire to nourish others, to be in a balance or harmony.  To be connected. This could be called the need for belonging.

Again, the Sorrow-Joy dynamic seems to arise in a range of situations, but I’ve been thinking about the biology of joy.  Joy is produced by opiates that are absorbed in many parts of the brain, but especially in the frontal cortex, the seat of evaluation.  This is an intriguing pairing because it implies that somehow when we truly understand, we’ll  get the reward of inner bliss.  We could call that pursuit of meaning the need for purpose.

 

 

 

It’s likely that in our day-to-day lives, there are more basic needs than these, and certainly many, many “wants.”  The needs and wants are tied to a big range of feelings.  But perhaps if we can distill down to a simple level, the complexity of our feelings becomes easier to understand – and to manage.  While I’m uncertain if these labels are wholly adequate, there are three key messages that I hope you’ll take away:

1. Emotions are signals that serve a function.  They should not be “blindly obeyed,” but nor should they be ignored.

2. There is an innate connection between needs and emotions.  In trying to make sense of your own or another’s feelings, consider that they might be signals about a core need.

3. Although feelings can be uncomfortable and overwhelming, resist the urge to judge them – and to judge yourself and others for having them.  Instead, consider that each feeling is part of a larger story, a story of what’s truly most important.

 

---

Thank you to Ayman Sawaf for sharing Lazarus’ work and explaining that emotions come in pairs, to David Caruso for teaching me about the adaptive value of feelings, and to Dan Shapiro for the thinking about needs.

If you’re in Europe, please take this survey to help us understand who is interested in EQ in various European countries.  We’ll randomly select one respondent to receive a free EQ assessment w 1:1 debrief via skype, plus we’ll share a report w all who respond.  This is part of our ongoing efforts to understand who is in our network and how better to serve you to spread the power of emotional intelligence for positive change.

English: http://eq.org/lime/index.php?sid=44492&lang=en

German: http://eq.org/lime/index.php?sid=36369&lang=de

PLEASE share this with others in your network — a sample invite is below.

——– Sample Invite to EQ EU Survey ——-

Hello ______,

How aware are you of the concept of “emotional intelligence” or “EQ”?  EQ is the capacity we all need to understand and use emotions effectively.  It turns out that people with these skills have more personal and professional success… and companies that focus on EQ development attract and retain talent better — and make more money. Since EQ skills can be measured scientifically, and they can be learned, there is rapidly growing interest in many parts of the world.

English: http://eq.org/lime/index.php?sid=44492&lang=en

German: http://eq.org/lime/index.php?sid=36369&lang=de

Life is full of these moments of transition, of uncertainty and discovery.  People coming and going, growing up, moving away, coming back… waves on the sand, life seems to be continuously in flux, and you just can’t hold it still.

Yesterday I delivered Emma to her first sleep-away summer camp; she’ll be there for three weeks. Today my brother flies off to start his cardiology fellowship at Duke for several years, and Patty is driving Max to his first camp as well.  Not momentous events on a global scale — but for us, a Big Deal, and tomorrow feels lonely.

Yesterday Emma was overflowing with this amazing blend of completely excited and terrified.  As we got closer to the camp she was gripping my arm so tightly I thought I’d have bruises.  Interlochen is like Hogwarts for artsy kids, and as we drove into the camp past all the theatres and stages, she was trembling in excitement.  Once she met the other almost-all-first-time girls in her cabin, and her very sweet counselors, the terror dropped away and I was quickly not-so-needed.

I feel this incredible pride and honor in witnessing her strides, and a loss.  It reminded me of when I was a teacher, the first time my students were graduating and I just couldn’t stop tears flowing — one of the other teachers said, “You should be happy, this is what we’ve been working toward…” and I was happy, but happy and sad are not so far apart as all that.

Seeing all these kids so excited, so passionate, so scared, so vital, I was also filled with a larger nostalgia. So much LIFE all around, so much potential, so much discovery — new friends, the bliss of full immersion into weeks of learning.  Walking through camp, the air was textured with dozens of different musics from the rehearsal cabins, and everywhere were children in their new uniforms looking like plants about to burst into flower.  And I wasn’t going to be part of this adventure.

I am deeply happy for Emma to be part of this, and so proud that she’s such an accomplished and awake person, and I know that I am part of the adventure through her.  Nonetheless I had this sense of loss.  Or maybe more accurately, of questioning.  All these feelings stirring around, perhaps I could boil them down to this: Am I living my life, or simply passing through it?

I suspect the emotional turmoil of all of life’s transitions center on questions like this.  We have feelings to signal us, a big feeling means, “Pay Attention! Something important is happening…”  So walking along the shores of Lake Michigan after dinner, I found myself considering the last decade, and a few before that.  And the next ones.

In almost every way, it’s hard for me to imagine a better life than what I’m living now.  Yet I feel this strange paradox of the near-perfection of the moment, mixed with a sense of insecurity — of joy somehow slipping away into the past as I hesitantly step into an unknown future.  Can it possibly be better, or is it downhill from here? I’m not sure how to reconcile this.  How do I stay in love with the present, knowing it’s already gone?

It’s not so much a question of these three weeks.  Yes, today was long.  But tomorrow is back to a full schedule, and I know these days will fly by for us, and even faster for the kids.  So I think my feeling is more about the changing orbit of the stars of our family constellation.  Around a decade ago, I used that metaphor to describe how the children had transformed my life, not by doing anything, but simply by exerting an almost gravitational force of change.  Now, with a momentarily empty nest, I’m seeing how temporary these years are.  It’s not just “they’ll go to college;” it’s more immediate.  They won’t be 10 & 12 much longer.  In a minute they’ll both be teenagers.  The pace seems to be accelerating and the trajectory seems less clear.

It reminds me of this TV ad that I adore — an amazing reminder of the fragility and grace of love.  Take a look:

For me, the “seat belt” they’re advocating isn’t simply literal.  There are many safety belts we can fashion in ourselves and between one another.  Some are attractive illusions of safety, but others are enduring.  They’re not certain, and they don’t stop the accidents, but they shelter what’s most important.

In relationships, some of those safety belts are honest expressions of love, the risk to share, and being present with one another.  Perhaps choosing to embrace life, despite the fleeting race of time, is one of the most powerful.  I suppose saying goodbye to your baby girl at her first camp — with both a smile and a tear — is another.

In an 18-month project to equip leaders with new insights and tools for the people-side of change, this initiative created a 43% increase in participants’ readiness to cope with the complexities of organizational transformation.

Background:

The US military continues to undergo significant change to address the changing global context. Just as many companies face the need to become more adaptable and transformational, the armed services are engaged in similar rethinking and restructuring.  For example, for hundreds of years sailors have served on a particular ship; now sailors will move between ships as needed – creating a complex and dynamic workplace team in a high-challenge, high-risk, high-stakes context. Section IX of the National Security Strategy of the United States mandates transforming America’s military to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.

The US Navy Chaplain Corps serves the US Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.  One of the Corps critical responsibilities is to advise commanders and assist them in managing the readiness and wellbeing of the warriors and sailors in these services.  In this role, the Chaplains and their enlisted aides (“RPs”) are heavily involved in the human side of the changes.

Under the direction of Rear Admiral Robert Burt, the Chief of Chaplains from 2006-2010, the Corps undertook a series of initiatives to better equip the Corps for understanding and managing the human and emotional dynamics of change.  In a letter introducing the 3-day program outlined below, Chaplain Burt explained the goals:

“As the Sea Services revolutionize to meet tomorrow’s national security challenges and the Global War on Terror, every aspect of how we employ our forces, fight wars, plan program resources, build and modernize the fleet, and manage personnel is being re-examined.  This year’s Professional Development Training Course, “Ministry Tools for Times of Change,” will equip you to leverage the ministry opportunities presented by periods of significant transformation.

Understanding change and its effect on individuals as well as the institution is critical for mission readiness and ministry effectiveness.  To do so, it is vital that we are able to recognize the mode important elements for success in a rapidly changing environment.”

 

Implementation:

Six Seconds was invited to deliver a two-day workshop for senior commanders on emotional intelligence and change. David Tubley, a Chaplain in the Corps, had previously attended the Six Seconds EQ Certification and Advanced Certification programs; he was assigned to serve as a partner in the customizing the course content to the needs of the military culture and worked with Six Seconds throughout the implementation.

The two-day “Inside Path to Change” workshop was delivered to a group of senior Navy and Marine Corps officers and RPs, including officers from the Navy Education Training Command.  Following this initial pilot, Six Seconds was commissioned to:

1. Develop a customized 1-day introductory version of The Inside Path to Change focusing on the theory of EQ and change.
2. Deliver a Train-the-Trainer program to 20 officers with experience in training
3. Support the officers to deliver the 1-day program to approximately 1000 Chaplains, RPs, and staff.
4. Customize a 3-day followup program called “Ministry Tools for Times of Change” focusing on tools for increasing awareness and managing human dynamics of change.
5. Deliver the Ministry Tools for Times of Change in fleet concentration areas the US and world.

Program Design

The core concepts of the programs are captured in this introduction to the 1-day Inside Path to Change program:

Among the many opportunities and challenges these changes present, it is important for chaplains to become even more effective at…

• Managing their own changes so change remains an opportunity for ministry versus a “derailer” taking them away from their official role and purpose.
• Counseling individuals to cope in a rapidly changing environment.
• Advising leadership to effectively bring teams through change.
• Assisting the larger organization in a process of continuous improvement – that helps it fulfill its purpose while remaining values-based and ethical.

There are many competencies required for these activities.  Strategic thinking, analysis, relationship-building, and project management are required.  In addition, there is a fundamentally human component of change operating at an emotional level.

While essential for organizational success, change is always challenging.  Although most approaches to change recognize that these challenges are both strategic and emotional, the usual premise is that with a sound strategy people will fall into line.  This passing regard to the people who must execute the change leads most change efforts to fail.  In contrast, Six Seconds’ approach is based on understanding the human and emotional drivers of change and engaging those to assist in forming and executing effective strategy.

Emotional intelligence provides powerful insights and tools for engaging people in accomplishing critical goals.  Emotional intelligence (or “EQ”) is the capacity to effectively use emotions, and it’s a key-differentiating factor of successful leaders.

Six Seconds’ approach integrates the leading thinking on change. These theories are distilled into a practical action-learning model called the “EQ Change MAP” that helps leaders guide and sustain change.  The focus is on skillfully managing the emotions that either cause people to resist or embrace change.  The process helps managers develop a commitment to shared vision of a better organization, implement new initiatives while managing resistance, and then build clarity and alignment in a continuous improvement process.

The EQ Change MAP guides the change process through three stages:

Engage (develop clarity and buy-in). “Engage” is about getting ready – gathering ideas, resources, strategies, and emotional buy-in.

Activate (implement change strategies). “Activate” is about baby-step implementation – pilot projects and small wins.

Reflect (refine strategy and learn). “Reflect” is about refining – re-assessing and improving the plans so that the next iteration builds on the previous.

The EQ Change MAP is depicted below:

 

A key take-away from these programs is that emotions are a valuable part of change.  So-called “negative” emotions can give us insight and push us for change.  What are often called “positive” emotions can fuel change and sustain the change process.

The EQ Change Map is a “Ready-Fire-Aim” model focused on continuous improvement.  Like the Navy’s concept of an “80% solution,” the goal of the Change Map is to create buy in, take useful action, and then refine to build ongoing momentum for continuous improvement.

For more explanation of the Change MAP, see the book, INSIDE CHANGE (www.insidechange.net).

 

Implementation

Following Six Seconds’ learning design philosophy, these concepts were distilled into practical tools presented in an experiential process.  Both the 1-day and 3-day program used a blend of hands-on exercises, case studies, video-clips, and in-depth discussions to bring the concepts to life.  The 3-day program concluded with a “Capstone” exercise where small groups developed an implementation plan with was presented before a panel of subject matter experts.

The Inside Path to Change pilot and the Train-the-Trainer program utilized the Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Assessment as prework to provide specific, individual feedback about emotional intelligence.

The 1-day Inside Path to Change began with an orientation to current theories of change and the issues raised by various change theories, particularly the challenge of gaining buy-in and building momentum.  The program then introduced the EQ Change Map as a practical way to address those issues.  In the Map, above, there are three red arrows shown:  These represent essential emotional transitions required to create forward-moving change.  Because transitions are fraught with emotion, an effective change leader needs to have insight and skill in this domain:  In other words, they need emotional intelligence (EQ).  The program went on to focus on how the competencies in the Six Seconds EQ Model can become assets for change leaders.

The 3-day “Ministry Tools for Times of Change” built upon the orientation program going more deeply into the concepts and providing specific tools for increasing emotional awareness and management.  Program topics included the drivers and obstacles to emotional change, building trust, supporting others in change, and clarifying purpose.  Tools from Six Seconds’ methodology included “The Reaction Roadmap” (a process for understanding the neuroscience of emotional reactions, and options for moving out of reaction); “The Six Seconds Pause” (another look at the neuroscience of reactions); “Trust Traps” (a process for understanding trust as an emotional response and the drivers of trust); “Emotional Algebra” (an approach to integrating feelings into effective decision-making); and “Finding North” (a process for linking change to purpose).

 

Results:

The initial pilot was met with significant acclaim.  One participant, Dr. Albert Hill, wrote:

“As I see it, training is expensive, good training is valuable and your training was priceless. I’ve attended a lot of training over the years — I’ve delivered a fair share of it myself — but your ‘Inside Path to Change’ workshop was the most productive combination of captivating content, quality materials and engaging instructors I have experienced in a long, long time. Six Seconds had the whole package wired. I wish everybody in my organization could have been there.”

One year after the conclusion of the full program, the Director of Non-Resident Training, Commander David Gibson, sent an email to all officers who were participants inviting them to complete a survey for Six Seconds about the course.  There were 49 respondents (roughly 10% of the officers who attended the program).  The survey asked them to rate the importance of the subject matter, and their self-evaluation before and after the program in three areas:

1. Awareness of the emotional dynamics of change: 39% increase.
2. Processes and tools for working through these dynamics: 43% increase.
3. Tools for teaching about emotional intelligence: 58% increase.

 

The survey also asked participants for narrative comments about their experience and the results of the program (and for permission to quote their responses). As a result of program, are you doing anything differently as a Chaplain? If so, what kinds of different or better results are you getting?

“Yes, I am not a naturally willing subject for change.  However, the program added a great deal to my understanding of why I oppose it so much, and how to make it easier to deal with.  That helps me deal with those who struggle with change as well.  Change has become much less stressful for me and for the people around me.  Our office went through major change in 2007 and this was really helpful for us.” – William Holiman

“I am definitely more aware of the emotions I am experiencing as well as my peers and subordinates with change. Seeing much better results in mentoring them to adjust as they process the reasons, motivation, rationale for the change by the organization.” – Craig Muehler

“I am better able to assist others by identifying what is at the root of the response, and thereby allow them to have some control over the response that is better informed by their ‘noble goal.’” – Brian Stamm

“Yes, taking more time and being more reflective when discussing a emotionally charged issue, along the lines of the 6-second pause. The emotional temperature is lowered, insight increases, and we are able to work together toward a workable solution.”  – Michael Pumphrey

When asked about the importance of becoming more effective at change, 59% of the respondents rated it between highly and extremely important.  As individuals, change is challenging.  Multiplying that challenge by tens of thousands in a large organization, it takes strong insight and exceptional skill to make change successful.  The Six Seconds program provided a strong measure of each equipping these leaders to become more effective at this mission-critical process of transformation.  As a result, the chaplains became more effective change agents who could understand and manage the “red lines” of the Change MAP, the human dynamics that drive the success of change.

♣

Joshua Freedman, COO of Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Network (www.6seconds.org), is one of the world’s leading experts on applying emotional intelligence to improve performance. Freedman was one of the designers and master trainers for the program, along with Chaplain David Tubley, Tom Wojick, Mimi Frenette, and Marek Helstrom.  Six Seconds is grateful to Richard “Doc” Smith and the learning and development team at General Dynamics who helped manage the contracting of the Ministry Tools for Times of Change, and to Jonathan Frusti and Dr. Cash who helped initiate the project at the Corps’ schoolhouse.

 

Wading upstream through cars and hawkers, past shops glowing with ornate 24 karat bling, we decided to take a risk on an unassuming little restaurant.  Our table was just off the sidewalk, open to the Kuala Lumpur night in Little India.  After amazing dosas and delicious Indian treats, for the first time, I tried chai masala tea and I fell in love with its spicy creamy warmth.

Years ago my brother told me how great it is and tried to get me to try it;  I rejected it without even a taste.  I “knew,” beyond a shred of doubt, that it was bad.  I’d never tried it, heck, I didn’t even know what it was!  But I was certain and a bit superior in my confidence, and I had that sense of digging my heels into the ground, ready to battle to be right. Yet in the steamy evening air of KL, it was so easy to try something new.  Why?  

Why was I so happy being certain… and then why was I completely open to the risk later?  In addition to being a bit of a self-righteous idiot, it turns out that there is an important set of neurological functions at play here.  A brain battle that has important implications both personally and organizationally.

A sophisticated brain is the human edge — they allow us to negotiate the risks of a complex world — to survive and, hopefully, thrive.  To do that, our brains need a quick way of testing: “Is everything ok?”  “Are we safe?”  One of the most basic “acid tests” our brains use is comfort:  When we’re comfortable, our brains surmise, all is good.

This is a paradox and trap, because in a rapidly changing environment, short-term comfort often has deleterious consequence.  The “comfort test” works better when life is very stable; it prevents us from falling into difficult unknows and going off the deep end.  But since innovation and growth require some risk, some departure from the comfort zone, the “comfort test” has a terrible cost.  To balance this pressure toward sameness, our brains also have the capacity to project, to imagine, to plan for the unknown — to go into new territory without having to actually having to face the dangers.

Zooming into the neurobiology, in a sense we have a tug-of-war between the striatum and the amygdala, between opportunity and risk.  The striatum is part of the basal ganglia, a “bump” at the lower-back of the brain implicated in many aspects of decision-making as well as balance and navigation.  Interestingly, this center seems to manage balance both in terms of physical motion and in terms of wisdom.  The striatum, specifically, is tied to reward, novelty, and forward planning.  When we’re looking ahead, anticipating with pleasure, and innovating the striatum is active.

However, when we’re anxious or uncertain, activity here decreases.  For example, a team of neuroeconomists at Caltech ran an experiment with decision-making; as uncertainty increased, fear centers in the brain became more active while there was decreased activities in the striatum (Ming Hsu et al 2005).  

As doubts creep in, activity in the amygdala increases and we move more into a fear/reaction/protection response automatically rejecting the novelty.  As the incisive Jonah Lehrer puts is, “This the curse of uncertainty: it makes everything feel unappealing” (2010).  Conversely, of course, we experience the blessing of certainty:  It makes everything feel better.  We “know the answer” and don’t need to deal with the doubts… very comfortable!  But we don’t learn.

Since learning is so important to human survival, we have also developed wiring to motivate learning, but this will be regulated by the comfort/risk dynamic.  Dopamine, a neuro-chemical that gives us a kind of internal reward, is often associated with pleasure-seeking.  In a fascinating meta-analysis of brain imagery studies, Roy Wise found a connection between dopamine reward and “stamp in” a useful response, which, he says, is “ essential for the control of motivated behaviour by past experience” (Wise, 2004) — aka, learning.  When we plan ahead, consider possibilities, try something and experience success, we get this lovely reward of a rush of feel-good-dopamine.

So why was it easier for me to try chai in KL?  I suspect there were two factors, each with significant implications for individual and organizational change.

One – in a situation where I was actively learning, awake, engaged, exploring, the dopamine-learning-reward pathway was already highly activated.  So my brain was telling me, “learning feels good!”

How can we activate that positive experience of learning for ourselves and others?  If we do, it will open people  to new learning.

Two – I was out of my usual context, so it was normal to be uncertain, but I was not so far out of my comfort zone as to shift over to protection.

How can we get ourselves and others out of our usual context, into a situation different-but-positive enough that new perspectives create curiosity rather than righteous ego-protection?  If we do, it becomes less important to be certain because we’re on an adventure.

Do you see ways of strengthening these two conditions in your life, in your classroom, workplace team, or organization?  If innovation, growth, and learning are key for you to reach your goals, then ensure these two drivers are central to your planning and I suspect you’ll find the process faster and more efficient — not to mention a whole lot more fun.

At a personal level, I see this dynamic recurring in many places.  I am “sure” and happy in my rightness, and I use that excuse to evade.  Perhaps the most destructive version is that I spent decades evading exercise because I was sure that it wasn’t good.  Now that I’ve given it a shot, I’ve come to discover that all those people who said, “once you get into it, you’ll love it,” were right.  Yet even now, I feel this resistance to admitting that I was completely wrong.  It’s like being “wrong” is very bad, very dangerous — subconsciously “wrong” means I’m not trying hard enough, it means I’m not worthy of recognition.  Yet I am absolutely certain that uncertainty, balancing in a place of risk, being willing to stay in discomfort, is the most powerful step toward real growth.

 

…………………………..

©2011 Joshua Freedman

Brain image source

Communication in the workplace is a constant challenge. The pressures to perform and the chaos of constant change often create an environment which makes a “meeting of the minds” seem like an oxymoron.

Fortunately, research on emotions and the brain has helped clarify key communication tools. Paying attention to emotional subtext will build a deeper person-to-person communication. If you learn to listen from your mission, you will leap ahead in problem solving. Finally, make sure you know “whose ‘but’ ‘should’ be on the line” to ensure that communication is a two way process, not an assertion of power.

Emotional Subtext

You know how you can coo to your dog in a really sweet, loving voice, “Oh you stupid mutt I am going to get you for chewing up the sofa again,” and he hears, “good boy, sweet boy, good boy”? I hate to admit this publicly, but I am a bit like that dog in a recurring argument with my wife. It goes like this:

“Honey, are you mad?” (I ask innocently)

“No.” (I hear some tension in her voice) “I am not mad.” (That sounds like anger to me!)

“Hmmmm,” I ponder to myself, “she sure sounds mad….” “Uh, are you not even a little mad?”

“I said I am not mad, okay?”

“Okay, I just… well, I feel like you are mad.” In hindsight, I see this is a tactical error, but I somehow go for it every time. Before long, she’ll say, “Well now I am mad, you made me mad!” In our case, I am sure some of the miscommunication comes from each of us. Most of the time when I ask if she is mad, she actually is mad — but like many people who do not like conflict, she does not want to seem mad. I make it worse by “picking” at the irritation. In the office, people often follow the same pattern, but the reactions are cloaked in politeness. I say to my colleague, “So are you okay with this proposal?” He isn’t, but doesn’t want to argue about it, and says, “Sure, it is okay.” And I hear, “Don’t be an idiot, I hate it!” I am left with mixed messages and am unsure what he really thinks and how he really feels about the proposal and about me.

It is easier to see emotional subtext by watching others that by watching ourselves. For instance, turn on a congressional debate, and notice when a representative stands and says, “I would like to disagree with my esteemed colleague from across the aisle.” We all hear just how “esteemed” the colleague is at that moment — but the speaker pretends he is being polite, and the “esteemed colleague” is often provoked to respond to the emotion under the words.

If you break a communication down into component pieces, research shows that around ten percent of the message is the words (Albert Mehrabian). Most of the message is the tone and other “paralanguage.” And while we frequently manipulate the words (i.e., lie), research says that even a 5 year old child can accurately decipher the paralanguage in less than 10 seconds.

Why does it matter? After all, in most of our daily communication, we work hard to build clarity and to be tactfully truthful. Usually the issue is more confusion than deliberate obfuscation. One source of that confusion is the reality that we usually feel more than one emotion at a time.

In the “I am not mad” fight, Patty (my wife) probably was not, in fact, mad. She was a little “irritated mad,” or some part of her was mad, or she was mad in some ways or peeved about some thing. She was not “full-blown, duke-it-out mad,” so she was not deliberately deceiving me — rather she was conflicted, and I perceived one piece of the puzzle. I focused on that piece because of some of my own feelings, so all in all we achieved a limited communication with little depth, shallow context, and muddy clarity.

To avoid this pitfall, perhaps the most essential tool is for me to be clear on what I am feeling — or more accurately the blend of emotion I am feeling — and ensure that my spoken communication does not contradict that palette of feelings. If I can not align my thoughts, feelings, and actions, I will need to postpone the discussion until I can be more completely clear.

 

Listen From Your Mission.

There is no effective communication without effective listening. Listening is the tool which turns words into communication. Right now, you could be reading this article and no matter how clever or useful these words may be, if you are thinking of something else entirely and not “listening,” the words on this page will not enter your brain. Physiologically, there is a part of your brain — the hippocampus — which determines your focus. The hippocampus is like a great receptionist in the office of your brain. It looks at the “phone” in your brain, sees three lights on, and says, “no way that brain is going to take another call – I’ll just get rid of this guy.” And like a good receptionist, the hypocampus is highly sensitive to what’s going on in the office, sees how tense people are, how busy, how concerned, and evaluates incoming traffic.

Also like great receptionists, you can not fool your hippocampus. You say, “I am ready to take the call,” but mean, “I can’t believe I’ve got to take another call now, this is totally insane, I am still…” and your hippocampus knows. The result is a partial brain shut down — a “tune out” that can also turn into depression, anxiety, withdrawal, fatigue.

It turns out that a major mechanism for getting your hippocampus to pay attention is emotion. When you actually care (or feel anything strongly, or when there is a lot of variety for your brain), the hippocampus “tunes in” and you pay more meaningful attention.

So if you want to actually listen, you have to go beyond the outward steps of “active listening” we all learned as rote procedure for dealing with conflict. You actually have to care; to commit.

You might not care about the person, you might not care about the conversation, or the issue, but you do care that your behavior helps you meet your real goals, your objectives.

In other words, we each have a personal mission — it might not be written, but each of us is pursuing certain goals — and in almost any communication you can ask yourself, “how does my communication right now help or hinder my personal mission?” If you don’t have that mission written, now is a good time: writing your personal mission is like having a compass when you are reading a map.

For many people, their personal mission includes some kind of problem solving, some kind of learning, some kind of personal accountability, some kind of making the world better. This “outer-directed” thinking makes it easier to connect with people while communicating — it gives you a context of caring. It’s a useful resource — and without it, your communication is doomed to shades of mediocrity.

Perhaps this capacity is one of the reasons that emotional intelligence is such a critical part of success. People who can bring their hearts on-line are able to listen to the message beyond the words. They are able to turn the conflict into a learning opportunity. To persevere in spite of the complexity, the messiness, the frustration.

 

Whose “But” “Should” Be On The Line?

Conversations frequently occur against a backdrop of shifting power. The concern over who gets to have the final word is as old as the perennial 3-year-olds’ cry: “You are not the boss of me!” So between “Well our data shows,” and the “In every case I’ve managed,” and “I was just speaking with…” we have a tremendous range of not-so-veiled statements that mean, “I deserve to be listened to.” “I have a place at this table.” “I am right.”

We also have learned a host of more subtle words which help grab power. The problem is that power grabbed is not usually lasting — and bludgeoning employees with our own status does little to generate collaboration and rarely moves us closer to actually solving a problem or meeting a challenge.

Two of the most pervasive power-grab words are “but,” and “should.” Personally, I learned them from my grandmother. “Josh, you are such a good, smart, creative young man, but why aren’t you a lawyer? You should be a lawyer — or a doctor.” I love my grandmother, and I forgive her, and I know that is part of a grandmother’s job. At the same time, it is not my job in daily conversation.

When I say “but,” I am actually saying, “everything before the word ‘but’ is not actually important to me.” “It is a good proposal, but…” “You’ve been a great help, but…” “I love the model, but…”

An alternative to “but” is “and.” “The report is good, and unfortunately I don’t think it is going to fly.” There is no need to totally eliminate “but” — sometimes it is exactly what you mean: “These are all valid reasons, but I am going to take the risk anyway.”

The “should” means that I have the right — even the obligation — to set your priorities for you. Often this feels like the case; you might feel perfectly entitled to set your assistant’s priorities. But (ah, hear that?), don’t then turn around and ask why he is not a self-starter, why he lacks initiative, why you always have to spell out the agenda. So far more valuable than “should” is “could with feeling.” “You could do the filing first, and that would help me.”

As an experiment, pay attention every time you say “but” or “should” and ask yourself if that is the word you really mean. Ask yourself if you are using the word to control the situation, hold onto power, and be right — or are you using it to create a shared understanding.

 

 

Remember, the goal of communication is not for you to deliver your idea. It is to build a bridge between two people and meet in the middle. When you’re there, you’ll get a better view, be more powerful, and feel better too.

.::.

 

---

This article first appeared on 6seconds.org 2.6.2000

 

Evenings, weekends, whatever it takes to get the job done. I resist the word “obsessed.” “Committed” sounds much better. “It is only work,” a friend quips one night as I head back to the office. Only? In so many ways my identity is my work — I am what I do.

So with passion and purpose I dive into another project. Sometimes I notice that after I finish one, there are at least two more on my “to do” list. It reminds me of that Greek hero — perhaps Hercules? — slaying the hydra; each time he cut one head off, two more grew in its place. Finally, a sad but beautiful truth dawns: I can work 24/7 every day of my life — every day of three lifetimes — and I will still not be done with my work.

It is genuinely a sad truth because I believe in my work; I know that I am making the world a better place for our children.

It is a beautiful truth because it sets me free to live the life in which I genuinely believe. A life where I am what I do — and where what I do includes work, family, friends, spirit, nature, health, etc. I have long said to myself and others that my values include balance, that family comes first, that I need time out to “sharpen the saw” (Covey) — but when “I just need to finish this project,” it is so easy to slip from living those values.

I am privileged — In addition to the joy of work that I love, I have a family that I love, hobbies, commitments, and relationships that sustain me outside of work. So all those times when have I said, “Hon, I need to work late this week to finish a project,” I have felt conflict; while I wanted to live a complete life, I also wanted to complete my work. Every time I found myself working nonstop, I recognized that I was compromising my values but justifying that based on the importance of my work.

The recognition that I will not finish all my work eliminates my best excuse for failing to live my values. Since I will not finish anyway, how can I justify leaving my wife and baby girl alone at night?

Of course there still are some deadlines which I need to meet. I might stay up late writing an article for Priorities, for example, but I do not do so in a systematic way. These late nights are now the exception, not the rule.

Another obvious — but stunning — result of realizing that I will not finish all the work is that I am forced to re-prioritize on a regular basis. If I pretend that I will get through everything on the “to do” (which is usually 3 pages long), then I can pick whatever item is easy to start. Usually those are the most fun, most visible, or most something. Once I realize that I will not get them all done, I have to pick strategically.

There is something uniquely satisfying about crossing items off the to do list when the have been done. While that’s still my favorite to-do activity, the new parts of my strategic to-do process are almost as good: I move items from “to do” over to “good ideas.” I move items from my “to do” over to other people’s. I also throw some away — which has gotten to be almost as much fun as crossing them off. It is a game I play with myself to write everything down then get rid of most of it.

The result is a “to do” list that consists of more “keystone” pieces. These are the tasks on which other people’s work will hinge. If I get a seminar scheduled, someone else can get money in the door. If I get our team to Africa, someone there can build his program. There are a couple of goals that may help you pick the keystone tasks:

1. Multiply your efforts. Will this task allow other people to pick up the ball? Though it means giving up “control,” it also means giving empowerment.

2. Multiply your outcomes. Which pieces of work can be used again in multiple ways? Can this effort become part of many projects?

3. Multiply your benefits. Which pieces have both short term and long term benefits?

4. Play to your forte. Is this something which will be far more effective, faster and easier for you to do than another person?

5. Let your team be strong. Like taking pieces that fit your forte, give away pieces that let others shine.

6. There is not enough time to do all the work.

7. There will be more.

“There will be more” is my way of holding fast to number six. Once I have such a strong to-do list, I may find it seducing me — the lure of crossing out those items is strong. Then I will be done! Except I won’t be. The other piece of “there will be more” is that sometimes I feel at loose ends, like there are not clear strategic steps to take. So at those times it is important for me to remember that there will be plenty more work for me.

Like learning any new skill, I frequently fail in my commitment to remember that there is not enough time. Each failure is an opportunity to learn the lesson more deeply — and perhaps by the time I retire I will have mastered these techniques.

Some managers hear “tell everyone to do less” and immediately leap to the conclusion that if they admit that there is not enough time to do all this work, their teams will fall apart. Running fast makes everyone look necessary. They see a highly productive work force is one that works a lot — the more hours working the more work gets done — and use “finishing” as the major motivator of their employees.

The reality is that more work is not more productive. One of my colleagues in the EQ field, Esther Orioli, once told me the number one issue that she addresses is excessive overtime. We have all seen those organizations where it is devastating to possible promotion if you leave before nine or ten o’clock — so how motivated are those employees to work efficiently? If I am going to be there ’till 10, I know I am not going to bust my chops all morning!

You can see the culture of overwork around the water cooler. Organizations where overwork is the norm, people like to complain about how late they were working. They hang out getting coffee and talk about overwork for a half an hour, then go write a couple emails about it, and then discuss it some more. After they have ensured that they will not get the day’s work done before nine, then it is safe to dig in.

Imagine if we adopted the Swedish view of work hours: People who work past closing time are considered inefficient. What would happen if you created a work culture which says, “If you can not get a day’s work in before 5, you must be having trouble prioritizing”? Obviously there is something awesome people being willing to work 80 hours per week — but we can not pretend that there are not also costs. On a personal level, what happens to an efficient worker’s productivity and motivation when she watches her colleague collect overtime as a reward for being inefficient?

In terms of motivation, I am clear that task completion is motivating for me. I hate to be so banal, but I do like crossing things off my list. I like going to staff meetings and showing everyone how many of my tasks are done. But research on motivation suggests that it is not so much the well-worn list that is affecting me. In fact, some researchers claim that the real motivating factor is a sense of belonging. So maybe walking in with my tatty list is a way of ensuring that I have a place at the table.

It is through the balance of all areas of my life that each is enriched; when I provide time to live my values, I bring my love to work and am far more powerful — and when I bring my purpose home, I am a better father. In the end, what motivates me is a sense that I am doing good and important work in the company of others doing the same. And if all I do is work, I quickly lose touch with the true importance of what I am doing. It is through my time with family, friends, nature — it is through frisbee on the beach, through a candle lit dinner, through giggling with the baby that I see that I am contributing to something truly good and important.

 

---

This article first appeared on www.6seconds.org 7.1.01