One of our clients recently brought to my attention the work of David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz, authors of an article titled “The Neuroscience of Leadership.”  The article can be found on-line at Strategy + Business (summer 2006).  

The premise of the article is to propose a way for managers to view their jobs through the filter of how their management practices impact the brains (and therefore the behavior) of all involved.  The authors boil down their findings to a catchy acronym, “SCARF,” to represent five social qualities: (1)status, (2)certainty, (3)autonomy, (4)relatedness, and (5)fairness.  They explain that all five social qualities must be experienced in any given organization in order for creativity and productivity to increase.

Rock and Schwartz reference several very good research projects in order to build a compelling case of the importance of enabling the sense of reward, and minimizing the threat response in the workplace.  All of this is good information, and I did find it interesting to read.  However, while I plan to fill you in on the good, I feel compelled to provide you some cautionary thoughts as well.

Here is a summary:

Brain research reveals that the origin of the sensation of physical pain is similar in proportion and location, to the area of the brain that is activated when someone experiences social rejection.  The authors use this and other research to build a case toward remembering the social qualities of SCARF. This is very cool stuff to be sure… But, just because something is interesting and intriguing, does not necessarily mean it is important and relevant!

For some reason, everyone is interested in the brain.  Marcus Buckingham has called it the “Decade of the Brain.”  Some of my most popular blogs have been regarding the brain and related research findings.  And don’t get me wrong, as I said, I think the brain and research on the brain is really cool stuff.  What I’m uneasy about is when someone uses brain research to shape their own ideas, and then to sell consulting around these theories while inferring that their view of it all is accepted theory.

It’s not that I don’t think Rock and Schwartz are helping companies.  I’m sure they are – Because what they are sharing has so much intuitive reality already built in.  There is nothing wrong with redundancy – we all need to hear principles of truth again and again.  However, I don’t know about you, but I didn’t need to know what happens in the brain to know why certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness are a good thing.

I don’t fault Rock and Schwartz for trying to build a consulting practice around information about the brain.  That is not what my caution is about.  What I’m wondering is:  Have we become callous to applying good old general psychological principles… or better yet common sense?  Perhaps what has happened is that we need to hear something about the brain (something tangible and important sounding) to make it important to us.  Whatever it is, there are people taking advantage of this mindset – They are using it to sell us services.

In the long run, if the services do us good then there is no apparent harm done.  What I fear is that we are resisting good old fashion right and wrong.  Certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness are the RIGHT things to develop in your company.  And yes, because of this, all research should find all brain data to reinforce these truths.

Don’t wait for the research— Remember what’s right, remember the old-fashioned Golden Rule, and find ways to apply it daily.  

Editor’s Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you’re an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the “comments” link below.