Emotional Resilience: with emotion

One of the areas I have been focussing on both in terms of work and research (there is another book on the way) is emotional resilience (we run The Fear Course in many UK universities). One of the most common misperception about emotional resilience is that it means people are able to do things like make decisions, deal with situations without emotion.

Cutting off from your emotions is not a useful trait, in fact it can cause many problems especially in leadership and management situations. Our perception of situations is as much the ability to be able to feel a situation as well as think about it. Our emotions and thinking operate together to give us a fuller sense of a situation and importantly for managers and leaders operate with empathy as well as ethically and morally in any situation.

Additionally an individual without emotion would have a sever problem with logic or reason. Reasoning requires a level of understanding of emotions.

More on this soon.

Too busy to lead III - The draw of certainty & ambiguity aversion

This series of blogs about leaders being too busy to lead appear, from the emails I have received, to have struck a cord with quite a lot of people. The emails can roughly be divided into three categories:

1. About 20% from leaders who recognise their situation and have emailed for help to change the situation, which we are busy dealing with,


2. About 60% saying 'this is so true' from people complaining that their bosses don't lead and spend most of their time micromanaging, interfering in their work and that they spend more time covering their backs and supplying 'urgent data' to the leader rather than being productive.


3. The rest (about 20%) were from leaders saying words to the effect that they would love to get on with leading only "My staff are incompetent so I have to manage them".

The emails were interesting on their own, however being a researcher at heart I decided to investigate a bit further so I started to ask some questions. I wanted first of all to know what the email writers (251 in all) thought the issues were that led to this situation.
In order of popularity of answer:

1. Leaders doing what they are comfortable with / used to doing
2. Role ambiguity between leadership and management
   
3. Lack of trust on behalf of the leader
   
4. Fear of the risk of something going wrong (Similar to but different from no 2)
5. Incompetent staff (guess which group this answer wholly came from)
6. Lack of confidence on behalf of the leader
7. Lack of training for the leaders and others
8. Incompetent leaders

It would appear, if this is correct, that the number one reason for the lack of leadership behaviour from leaders is the safety of doing what the leaders know best - what they used to do. Of the 20% of emails I got from leaders asking for help all of them agreed with the statement that tended to behave in ways that were consistent with their old roles particularly under pressure and revert to management activities rather than maintaining a leadership presence.

Last year (2007) Science published an article about the role ambiguity and certainty plays in our brains based on an experiment Camerer did based on the Ellsberg Paradox which I talked about earlier:

Camerer's experiment revolved around a decision making game known as the Ellsberg paradox. Camerer imaged the brains of people while they placed bets on whether the next card drawn from a deck of twenty cards would be red or black. At first, the players were told how many red cards and black cards were in the deck, so that they could calculate the probability of the next card being a certain color. The next gamble was trickier: subjects were only told the total number of cards in the deck. They had no idea how many red or black cards the deck contained.

The first gamble corresponds to the theoretical ideal of economics: investors face a set of known risks, and are able to make a decision based upon a few simple mathematical calculations. We know what we don't know, and can easily compensate for our uncertainty. As expected, this wager led to the "rational" parts of the brain becoming active, as subjects computed the odds. Unfortunately, this isn't how the real world works. In reality, our gambles are clouded by ignorance and ambiguity; we know something about what might happen, but not very much. (For example, it's now clear just how little we actually knew about Iraq pre-invasion.) When Camerer played this more realistic gambling game, the subjects' brains reacted very differently. With less information to go on, the players exhibited substantially more activity in the amygdala and in the orbitofrontal cortex, which is believed to modulate activity in the amygdala. In other words, we filled in the gaps of our knowledge with fear. This fear creates our bias for certainty, since we always try to minimize our feelings of fear. As a result, we pretend that we have better intelligence about Iraqi WMD than we actually do; we selectively interpret the facts until the uncertainty is removed.

Camerer also tested patients with lesioned orbitofrontal cortices. (These patients are unable to generate and detect emotions.) Sure enough, because these patients couldn't feel fear, their brains treated both decks equally. Their amygdalas weren't excited by ambiguity, and didn't lead them astray. Because of their debilitating brain injury, these patients behaved perfectly rationally. They exhibited no bias for certainty.

Obviously, it's difficult to reduce something as amorphous as "uncertainty" to a few isolated brain regions. But I think Camerer is right to argue that his "data suggests a general neural circuit responding to degrees of uncertainty, contrary to decision theory."

It would appear that our response (aversion) to ambiguity may have a neuronal explanation (not an excuse mind you), which may in turn explain why only about 2% of leaders are mode 4 leaders and are naturally comfortable, or more accurately have a greater ability to mediate their discomfort with uncertainty (emotional resilience).

Heathrow Terminal 5 Chaos - management and leadership

It opened on time, within budget (£4.3 bn or $10 bn) and to spec, well the technical specifications anyway. A triumph of a new project management (actually on behalf of BAA it was project leadership and management) model that saw the sponsor taking responsibility, leading with vision and humility and not pushing the risk to the contractors in the usual punitive way of management. BAA looked at all the famous project management flops and realised that the often used model of abrogation of risk and responsibility (i.e. no leadership) to the contractors doesn't produce good projects. It is interesting that many managed and not led projects are government programmes, but that's another issue.

It is estimated by the respected transport Journalist Christian Wolmar that if this programme had gone the way of most other large capital projects it should have overrun on costs by about 40%, been about 1-2 years late and an average of 6 workers would have been killed during the construction phase.

As it is the project, one of the most complex yet, didn't have any of these problems and yet we see this happening, delays, the baggage system halted because the loaders couldn't keep up, glitches due to the complexity of the system, check in staff confused about the new systems. There will of course be a post-mortem, many reports and it will be interesting to see what the results will be of these.

However from a preliminary trawl of the media and BAA / BA material (they are staying very tight lipped at the moment, giving quick briefings and walking off before they can be asked any questions, listening to the passengers stories it sounds like the technical systems are working fine. The problems appear to be when humans who didn't design and grow with the technology are suddenly required to operate it all together.
I am reliably told (by a BAA employee) that every system was tested and retested and works. However everything working together with real people and not the experts and designers operating the systems things started to go wrong.

On the face of it the success of the capital part of the project was down to the sponsors bearing the risk, leading as well as managing the project, by which I mean taking responsibility, allowing the risks to be real and not pretending they don't exist or minimising them, keeping communications open at all levels, listening to feedback at all levels as the project progressed and learning as they went along. The failure of the operations appear to stem from the opposite. There appears to been a lot of management and little leadership when it came to the operations side of things. Both need to work together, especially when it comes to people.

The difference between management and leadership and what happens when both aren't operating together came out loud and clear in the very different press briefings given by BA.

The sight of BA Director of Operations Gareth Kirkwood, clearly rattled, giving a press statement to say sorry (which was good) and then walking off refusing to answer any questions (which was not good), did not help. He was clearly trying to manage the situation however in doing so displayed poor leadership and very little emotional resilience, which are closely connected, especially in times of difficulty.

This is in contrast to the performance today of The Chief Executive of British Airways, Willie Walsh, who was composed, honest and human, took responsibility and answered the questions put to him. Leadership matters as does management - they have to work together.

Leadership Resilience - the difference that makes the difference

Yesterday Keith Mcfarland on Inc.Com posted an article about the Polaris Motorcycle Company. As a biker (BMW) the article caught my eye. As a developer of leadership and organizational resilience the article was a great example of a leader being brought in with no knowledge of the industry or even motorcycles and turning a brand from being seen as one of the worst makes in the world to being some of the most desirable (I would have one!), innovative and well manufactured bikes ever and all during a shrinking US and global motorcycle sales market.
Keith McFarlands bottom line? Leadership resilience. Read his fascinating and inspiring article entitled 'You think you have it tough? here. Then come back here for more or better still head over to Centre i for more, or download the 2008 brochure and develop some resilience in your organization now.

Oh I will get round to finishing off the Ambiguity, bad showers, and organizational restructuring blog asap!

Ambiguity in Organizations

Click on the graph to make it bigger.

Again some interesting comments from Christine

Here are the approximate distributions of the modes of leadership. As you can see mode 4 leaders are in the minority. (modes 0 and 5 are theoretical at the moment as the research hasn’t been completed on these - these are the latest research distributions however only 1 -4 are accurate populations).

In terms of ability to deal with ambiguity, roughly the closer to mode 4 you get the better things get. Like everything in life every upside has a downside. The downside of this is that the closer to mode 4 you get the less methodical people are and they really don’t like stability too much. So at the moments an organisation needs change these are the guys, however the moment an organisation needs to just settle down and have a period of stability then mode one and two are the people to help here. The approach we take is to give people, particularly leaders the ability to operate in every/any mode depending on the situation and the outcome desired. This is what gives the leaders (and their organisations) their agility. Being agile usually means better decisions and more flexible thinking.

The point for me in developing (at least) tolerance of ambiguity in a wider population is that without it people’s decision making is usually impoverished. By this I mean that if they are reacting emotionally in a knee jerk way to uncertainty or risk for example, they are not usually making great decisions. Developing ambiguity acuity equips people to think clearer, make better decisions, behave better, it enhances problem solving etc. particularly, but not exclusively, in difficult and shifting situations. The very situations others spend most of their time avoiding or denying. They certainly outperform colleagues who don’t have much emotional resilience in a wide range of leadership tasks. These are also the people who will take a risk and try new things.

As you start to increase the numbers of people in an organization who can, as a minimum at least, cope with ambiguity the more agile the organisation becomes, the easier it finds it to navigate difficult times and find advantage where others are struggling. Such organisations also adapt to changing conditions quicker and with a better fit. This is why we do the work we do in companies and organisations. It makes them successful right at the time others are having it tough. To come out of a tough time like a recession for example in great shape, being innovative and having found new markets or other advantages during the difficult times, is like having a spring board into a new world, when others are still just looking up at the board wondering how to get up there.

In short - deal with ambiguity better and you and your organization become more agile, competitive, and swift.

Risk aversion research

Whilst teaching at the Medical Sciences Division at Oxford University this week I came across a young D.Phil student conducting some very interesting research into risk and risk aversion in humans through the lens of medical perspectives of gambling addiction. Now clearly I am not going to pre-publish someone else's research, and especially not a student's, however the conversations we are having and the other research we have discussed are available to share and they throw an interesting light on risk averse behaviour, ambiguity and emotional resilience.
First I just want to reiterate a couple of things that I have mentioned before; Risk aversion is an emergent property of an individuals emotional reaction to a situation that is perceived to be ambiguous or uncertain, and that risk averse behaviour is usually different depending on whether the risk is considered to be risk of a gain or risk of a loss. Normally are more willing to take a risk if they believe there is a potential large win and a small loss. Which is why many more people will risk a few pounds or dollars on only a 14 million to 1 chance of winning the lottery (and almost certain to loose their money) without thinking and yet won't engage in stock ownership even though the likelihood of profiting is far greater in the latter scenario.
So most people have a natural tendency to avoid loss. This is that case whether the loss is financial, personal - like a job, role or position or social like a relationship, often suffering sever hardships rather than loose something like a bad relationship or a job they don't like.
The risk aversion in these cases are anticipatory, the loss hasn't actually happened and cold calculations of probability rarely affect the emotional reaction. (Which is why we often concentrate on emotional resilience in our workshops and coaching).
To be continued...

Leadership when people are scared III

When you are leading people who are scared here are some do's and don'ts:

DO

1. Learn to be become emotionally resilient. In a recent study we found that this is the single biggest factor in dealing well with difficult and ambiguous situations. This means that you can control the balance between your emotions and thinking whilst still keeping in touch with your instincts and remaining empathetic. More about this.
   
2. Give people a sense of positive direction and movement. This really helps when people are unsure and emotions are running high.
3. Communicate lots and keep in touch with people. One of the biggest failures, especially in situations of flux and change is not to keep people with you every step of the way. You should be acting as if you are on a mountain in bad weather with poor visibility. You rope everyone together and move as a group.
4. Listen lots. All to frequently when the going gets tough , managers and leaders become autocratic, start telling and stop listening. History is full of such instances where leaders wouldn't listen to 'negative talk'. This is a big mistake. Listening to everything can notify you of so much like how people are thinking and feeling, dangers on the horizon are closer and more. The special forces (SAS etc) have what is called Chinese Parliaments. These are group meetings where everyone regardless of rank or status can and are expected have their say and put forward ideas, thoughts or questions including criticisms of leadership decisions and thinking. This form of tough love has lots of advantages.
5. Keep people busy and thinking. The more they have to think the less time they have to feel scared. So let them solve problems rather than what most leaders tend to do is do the solving themselves (often poorly - see this). Make sure any tasks you give people are real tasks. people know when they are just being kept occupied with meaningless tasks. Navigating difficult and ambiguous times is a team effort.
   

DON'T

1. Panic! Keeping your emotions is vital now. If others think that you are in a negative emotional state and making knee jerk reactions rather than using the resources around you, they are unlikely to follow willingly. Additionally you may find that people start to loose respect for you.
2. Make decisions in isolation no matter how good you think they are. Test them out and modify them in the light of different thinking from others.
3. Surround yourself with comforting people who think like you do. This will just lead to group think. Find diversity in views and challenge. Now more than ever everything, and I mean everything needs to be challenged. Failure in difficult and uncertain situations usually come about because of the assumptions people make that go unchallenged. Paradoxically right now you need people who will confront, contest and question, which is the opposite often of what most leaders do in difficult situations which is to surround themselves with people who will agree and make them feel comfortable with their decisions. This is another reason why you need to be emotionally resilient.
   
4. Shoot down daft ideas. Right now you need all the creative, imaginative and innovative ideas you can get. Treat one idea with contempt or anything less than being very welcome and you will kill creativity stone dead. Even the daftest (to you) ideas could well lead to an opportunity or the solution you need. Far too many leaders and their teams shut down prematurely on ideas and never find that killer concept. Nurture all ideas and see what flowers.
   
5. Try to control things too much. The normal response to difficult times is to start to put in place tougher controls. This is often a very big mistake as it stops great and creative things happening, those happy accidents that get you out of the pile of poo you are in. These are known in complexity theory as emergent properties and they can only really occur when things are allowed to flow. More controls are frequently a sign of an emotional response to what is seen as a negative situation. Chill, look for opportunities and play!
   

Leadership when people are scared

Leading when things are good is an art. Leading when things are difficult and people are frightened is a whole different matter. When people are scared a number of physical attributes occur which leaders need to be cognisant of as it will affect the way people receive and process information and make decisions.

1. The first thing that most people become aware of is that their heart rate increases significantly. In extreme cases people report the feeling that their hearts were going to pound its way out of their rib cage.

2. The next sensation is that their eyes are wide and that their pupils are dilated. The effect of this paradoxically is that too much light enters the eye and they lose peripheral vision, having to actually stare directly at things to see them with any clarity. This is in acute cases becomes tunnel vision and people find it hard to fix on any one thing with their eyes having to flit between things, often not long enough to take in any detailed information.

3. Their hearing becomes more acute, hearing things in greater clarity. However like the vision there is a paradox here in that whilst the hearing becomes sharper it also becomes more selective, taking in only certain information it deems to be part of the threat, excluding other sounds. People are often unaware that their auditory faculty has changed.

4. Physically people frequently report a range of affects including inability to walk properly, sick / knotted feeling in the stomach, tense muscles. In extreme cases the individual may find that they have lost the ability to talk.

Given these responses it is not difficult to see why leading people in this state takes something very different to normal situations, especially when you add the fact that the reason people are in a heightened emotional state is because either things are uncertain or difficult in some other way. However I have to say it is usually copious amounts of ambiguity coupled with some form of threat that flips people into negative emotional states. So is it is an uncertain situation that has risk associated with it, the leader is also likely (depends on the individual) to be under stress and not performing at their best which compounds the issue, which is why we tend to develop the emotional resilience of the leader(s) first before getting the team into a more resilient place.

The next blog will look at some things a leader should and shouldn't do in these situations.

Fear, Emotional Resilience & Risk Aversion

With in less than 24hours of the last blog about risk aversion and recession this happens based on fear, the perception that something might happen.
One of the things that we discuss on our workshops is the role of fear in risk aversion and behaviour.
Fear is a largely anticipatory activity; rarely does it occur after an event. Quite often with our fear we bring about the very event we don't want to happen, as discussed yesterday. An analogy if you like is learning to ride a motorcycle. When learning to ride the thing that most learners find difficult is cornering as you have to lean into the corner and until you get used to it , it feels like a pretty unnatural position, especially if you are used to driving a car. What learners then do is have a fear of running off on a bend and as a result of which they fix their eyes on the kerb, where they don't want to go of, just to check that they are not getting too close. Of course you tend to aim for where you are looking, the fear in this case increases the chances of running off on a bend! Experienced riders on the other hand fix their eyes on where they want to go, around the bend and they look for the exit not the thing they don't want to happen. As a result they can get around much faster and safer.
Fear makes us aim for the thing we least want. The acronym for fear is
False
Evidence
Appearing
Real
How many things have you been scared of that turned out to be nothing? It leads to risk aversion and often brings about the very thing we don't want to happen.
If everyone decided that the market was ripe for investment and opportunity the market movement would be very different. When fear is endemic things start to go badly wrong as fear feeds of fear.
I am sure most of us will remember as a child being in a group telling ghost stories. As the stories build so does the group fear until eventually someone actually sees a ghost and everyone runs screaming! Group hysteria.
This is the reason why emotional resilience, as opposed to intelligence is so important, which is the cornerstone of our workshops with people like the emergency services, disaster managers et al.
There is nothing that exists now that didn't exist last week in the financial market. What is happening is based on an emotional reaction (or lots of them) feeding off each other in a fear frenzy. Tomorrow should be interesting.
It may not have escaped anyones attention that many wars start similarly.