
Photo by Matti Mattila. Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.
| Subscribe | |
![]() | Get Email Updates |
![]() | Search This Site |
| Archives & Categories |
![]() Shared under a Creative Commons License. |

Photo by Matti Mattila. Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.
Mar 26, 2010 in Blogging, Business, Change Management, Coaching, Communication, Design, Leadership, Management, Media, Motivation, Neuroscience, Organizational Development, Productivity, Science | Permalink | Comments (2)
Shortly before taking a break from writing last Fall, I began digging more deeply into the work of David Rock, who for many years has been exploring the field of neuroscience and its implications for management, coaching, and organizational life. (This resulted in my November 2009 post David Rock on Neuroscience, Coaching and Leadership.) Having begun writing again, I continue to find inspiration in Rock's work.
The SCARF Model
Much of Rock's current thinking is distilled in Managing with the Brain in Mind, published in August 2009 in strategy+business, Booz & Company's quarterly magazine (free registration required) and in "SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others," a paper originally published in 2008 in Issue #1 of the NeuroLeadership Journal (co-founded by Rock) and available as a PDF on the Resources page of the site promoting Rock's new book, "Your Brain at Work."
The SCARF model referenced in both pieces (and briefly touched on in my previous post) refers to Rock's framework for understanding the five primary social dimensions within which our brains respond to perceived threats and rewards. From Rock's "SCARF..." paper:
[T]wo themes are emerging from social neuroscience. Firstly, that much of our motivation driving social behavior is governed by an overarching organizing principle of minimizing threat and maximizing reward (Gordon, 2000). Secondly, that several domains of social experience draw upon the same brain networks to maximize reward and minimize threat as the brain networks used for primary survival needs (Lieberman and Eisenberger, 2008). In other words, social needs are treated in much the same way in the brain as the need for food and water.
The SCARF model summarizes these two themes within a framework that captures the common factors that can activate a reward or threat response in social situations. This model can be applied (and tested) in any situation where people collaborate in groups, including all types of workplaces, educational environments, family settings and general social events.
The SCARF model involves five domains of human social experience: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness.
Status is about relative importance to others. Certainty concerns being able to predict the future. Autonomy provides a sense of control over events. Relatedness is a sense of safety with others, of friend rather than foe. And fairness is a perception of fair exchanges between people.
These five domains activate either the 'primary reward' or 'primary threat' circuitry (and associated networks) of the brain. For example, a perceived threat to one's status activates similar brain networks to a threat to one's life. In the same way, a perceived increase in fairness activates the same reward circuitry as receiving a monetary reward.
I've taken the liberty of adapting Rock's graphic version of the SCARF model, with an increased emphasis on the disproportionate ability of threat responses to drive us away relative to reward responses' ability to pull us closer:

Some further comments on each of the five dimensions of the SCARF model:
Status
Status is "about relative importance, 'pecking order' and seniority," Rock writes in "SCARF..." He cites the work of epidemiologist Michael Marmot, whose research suggests that status is "the most significant determinant of human longevity and health, even when controlling for education and income."
Two key aspects of our brain's perception of status are: 1) how easily a threat response can be triggered by such conventional workplace practices as performance reviews and "feedback" conversations, and 2) the fact that threat and reward responses related to changes in status can be triggered "even when the stakes are meaningless," as Rock writes in strategy+business. These dynamics imply not only that extreme care must be taken to conduct reviews and provide feedback in ways designed to boost, rather than threaten, the recipient's status, but also that attention must be paid to all the little, everyday ways in which interpersonal status can be built up and torn down.
Certainty
The importance of certainty can be seen as a result of the brain's effort to conserve energy, which derives from the limited capacity of the prefrontal cortex, the seat of executive function. As I wrote last November, "we resist mental effort around decision-making and impulse control because we're preserving resources in case we need them more urgently in the next moment," and the same dynamic contributes to our resistance to uncertainty. When we're acting with sufficient certainty, our brain senses patterns, successfully predicts next steps, and operates much more efficiently. But when we lack certainty and can't predict what will happen next, "the brain must use dramatically more resources, involving the more energy-intensive prefrontal cortex, to process moment-to-moment experience," as Rock writes in "SCARF..."
That said, it's useful to distinguish mild uncertainty from excessive uncertainty. The former triggers a mild threat response, generating just enough adrenalin and dopamine "to spark curiosity and energize people to solve problems, Rock writes in strategy+business. However, he continues, "when perceived uncertainty gets out of hand, people panic and make bad decisions."
Autonomy
Our perception of our ability to exert control over our environment has a substantial effect on our response to stress factors in our life. When we feel more autonomous, we're much more resistant to stress--and when we feel less autonomous, we can perceive the same set of circumstances as much more stressful.
Two aspects of autonomy worth nothing are: 1) autonomy and certainty are intertwined--more autonomy yields a greater sense of certainty about the future; and 2) similar to status, "even a subtle perception of autonomy can help," Rock writes in "SCARF..." suggesting that even where autonomy is substantially limited by organizational constraints, meaningful perceptions of autonomy can be generated by small gestures.
Relatedness
"[I]n the brain," Rock writes in strategy+business, "the ability to feel trust and empathy about others is shaped by whether they are perceived to be part of the same social group... When [a] new person is perceived as different, the information travels along neural pathways that are associated with uncomfortable feelings (different from the neural pathways triggered by people who are perceived as similar to oneself.)... Once people begin to make a stronger social connection, their brains begin to secrete a hormone called oxytocin in one another's presence. This chemical, which has been linked with affection, maternal behavior, sexual arousal and generosity, disarms the threat response and further activates the neural networks that permit us to perceive someone as 'just like us.'"
So in an interpersonal setting it's important to interact in ways that will surface points of similarity, strengthen social connections and increase a sense of relatedness. From a neuroscientific perspective, this process generates oxytocin, allows our brains to classify the other person as "friend" rather than "foe," and contributes to feelings of trust and empathy. Of course, this begs the question of how to address dimensions of diversity. I'm certainly not suggesting that such differences be ignored, but Rock's theory (and my empirical experience with a wide range of clients and students) implies that differences are much more effectively addressed only after a sense of relatedness has been established.
Fairness
"The perception that an event has been unfair," Rock writes in strategy+business, "generates a strong response in the [brain], stirring hostility and undermining trust... In organizations, the perception of unfairness creates an environment in which trust and collaboration cannot flourish." Rock notes in his "SCARF..." paper that "unfair exchanges generate a strong threat response [that] sometimes includes activation of the insular, a part of the brain involved in intense emotions such as disgust... People who perceive others as unfair don't feel empathy for their pain, and in some instances, will feel rewarded when unfair others are punished."
And like status, perceptions of fairness are relative. I'm reminded of a recent experience with some colleagues in which I acted in a manner that I felt was fair and justified, while several others had the opposite perception. At the time I was surprised not only by the difference in our perceptions, but also by the difficulty we experienced in resolving the issue under discussion. However, in hindsight it's easy to see that the relative nature of fairness implied that there was no absolute truth to be discovered, and the logical arguments of either side were bound to be fruitless. It was only after we stopped trying to convince the other side of our rightness and simply accepted our relative perceptions that we made any progress toward resolving our differences.
Conclusions
The implications of the SCARF model (and the neurological processes it describes) for the workplace are made clear in Rock's strategy+business article:
Although a job is often regarded as a purely economic transaction, in which people exchange their labor for financial compensation, the brain experiences the workplace first and foremost as a social system...
Leaders who understand this dynamic can more effectively engage their employees' best talents, support collaborative teams, and create an environment that fosters productive change. Indeed, the ability to intentionally address the social brain in the service of optimal performance will be a distinguishing leadership capability in the years ahead...
The impact of this neural dynamic is often visible in organizations. For example, when leaders trigger a threat response, employees' brains become much less efficient. But when leaders make people feel good about themselves, clearly communicate their expectations, give employees latitude to make decisions, support people's efforts to build good relationships, and treat the whole organization fairly, it prompts a reward response. Others in the organization become more effective, more open to ideas and more creative. They notice the kind of information that passes them by when fear or resentment makes it difficult to focus their attention. They are less susceptible to burnout because they are able to manage their stress. The feel intrinsically rewarded...
If you are a leader, every action you take and every decision you make either supports or undermines the perceived levels of status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness in your enterprise. In fact, this is why leading is so difficult.
More specifically, as Rock writes in his "SCARF..." paper...
[K]nowing the drivers that can cause a threat response enables people to design interactions to minimize threats. For example, knowing that a lack of autonomy activates a genuine threat response, a leader or educator may consciously avoid micromanaging their employees or students. Secondly, knowing about the drivers that can activate a reward response enables people to motivate others more effectively by tapping into internal rewards, thereby reducing the reliance on external rewards such as money.
Looming in the background are several key factors Rock mentioned in his talk at Oracle last November: First, as made clear in the graphic above, threat responses are usually much more powerful than reward responses, and thus we move away from threats more quickly and more vigorously than we move toward rewards. So it's not enough to give equal emphasis to rewards in our leadership and management practices--our brains' disproportionate response to perceived social threats implies that we need to put a much greater weight on efforts intended to generate a reward response, and take great pains to avoid triggering a threat response. (I'm reminded of psychologist John Gottman's research indicating that the ratio of positive to negative interactions in good relationships is 5:1, even in times of conflict.)
Second, our typical reaction to the strong negative emotions generated by a threat response is to suppress them, particularly in the workplace. But this response has many undesirable consequences, from reducing our own memory function to raising the blood pressure of people around us. So the cost of a threat response isn't borne solely by the person experiencing it, but by anyone who interacts with them or depends on their effectiveness. It's a shared--one might even say contagious--social experience, and this highlights the importance of group dynamics, perhaps most significantly the extent to which it's safe (or unsafe) in a given group to express negative or difficult emotions. (I'm reminded of my post last year on crying at work.)
Finally, we have very little time--approximately 1/3 of a second--after the perception of a potential threat before a neurological threat response is triggered. So on an individual basis, it's essential to cultivate our ability to recognize the conditions that might trigger a threat response and proactively reappraise the situation. And at the group or interpersonal level, it's important to be aware of the speed and ease with which a threat response can be triggered in someone else, to understand how such a response is likely to undermine effective communication, and to take steps that support the other person's reappraisal of the situation without creating defensiveness. (The importance of reappraisal is a topic I'll be returning to in the future.)
As I noted last November, I see Rock as a (and perhaps the) leading figure in the process of helping practitioners such as myself understand current neuroscience research and apply its findings responsibly. Rock's SCARF model is a great example of his ability to translate the science into language appropriate for a lay business audience, and I expect to refer to it regularly in my work with coaching clients and MBA students. Many thanks, David.
Photo by Vato Bob. Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.
Mar 25, 2010 in Attention, Business, Change Management, Coaching, Communication, Leadership, Management, Motivation, Neuroscience, Organizational Development, Science | Permalink | Comments (8)
My
interest in neuroscience and its implications for executive coaching,
leadership development and other processes that involve behavioral
change led me to a talk by David Rock at Oracle
last week, sponsored by the South Bay Organizational Development
Network (SBODN).
I first came across Rock in mid-2006, when he and Jeffrey Schwartz co-authored "The Neuroscience of Leadership" (free registration required), which, as I wrote in response, "builds on recent findings in brain research to explain why much of the conventional wisdom in the organizational development field is wrong and to suggest alternative approaches that are better suited to how our brains actually work." I found Rock and Schwartz's vision compelling, although I took issue with their assertion that "humanism is overrated":
This is the one section of Rock and Schwartz's otherwise outstanding article that rings false for me. It's not an effective critique of humanism, although it is a highly effective critique of various misunderstandings and poorly implemented management practices.
I'd be less critical if Rock and Schwartz had
said, "Humanism is difficult to execute, can't be faked, and sometimes
devolves into thinly veiled and patronizing efforts at persuasion," or,
more concisely, "Pseudo-humanism is overrated."
In fact, I actually associate many of Rock and Schwartz's other recommendations to managers with a range of humanistic disciplines, from coaching to positive psychology:
In summary, I learned a great deal and found Rock's interpretation of current neuroscience research compelling. I even bought a copy of "Your Mind at Work," which I've skimmed in the course of writing this review, and I expect to dig more deeply into his work going forward.
A Note on Credibility
Rock's role as a populizer of complex and experimental scientific research has exposed him to criticism, such as a thorough (but unfortunately anonymous) critical review of "Quiet Leadership" on Amazon that calls the book "psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo." Rock has clearly made an effort to associate himself with reputable scientists, many from UCLA's School of Medicine, including Daniel Siegel, an Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry who wrote the foreward to "Your Brain at Work," and numerous speakers at the Neuroleadership Summit (which Rock founded and organizes), including Matt Lieberman and Naomi Eisenberg, clinical neuroscientists at UCLA whose work I've cited before. So despite any shortcomings in specific passages of Rock's work, I trust that he's engaged in a good faith effort to understand the science and represent it accurately for a lay audience. That said, I have two caveats.
First, in addition to the many neuroscientists speaking at the 2009 Neuroleadership Summit, Werner Erhard spoke on "How Language Shapes the World." Erhard, who founded est and the Forum, and whose work formed the basis of the subsequent Landmark Forum programs, clearly has a unique perspective on personal growth and development. And I know people who've attended and benefited from Landmark seminars (and I'm aware that some well-known management thinkers have been associated with Landmark over the years, including Warren Bennis--another 2009 Neuroleadership Summit speaker--and Michael Jansen.) But I've also read a number of articles that raise serious concerns about est and Landmark, particularly related to methods that participants experienced as coercive and the pressure placed on participants to sign up for additional workshops and to recruit their family and friends. So while I'm sure Erhard is a compelling and thought-provoking speaker, his credibility is diminished by those criticisms.
Second, while much of Rock's work with Jeffrey Schwartz is grounded in neuroscience that seems amply documented (at least to a layperson such as myself), in at least one instance they stray far into experimental territory and reach conclusions that seem unsupported by research. For example, in "A Brain-Based Approach to Coaching," Rock and Schwartz assert that the brain is a "quantum environment," by which they mean that it changes in response to observation, just as particles do in quantum physics (in contrast to the more predictable and invariable movements of particles in conventional Newtonian physics.) The implication, according to Schwartz, is "what has been termed self-directed neuroplasticity, or the ability of an individual to alter his or her own brain activity through the active practice of focusing attention in constructive ways." This is a complex concept, but it's certainly one that I find credible, and describing the brain as a quantum environment helps me to understand it.Nov 18, 2009 in Attention, Books, Business, Change Management, Coaching, Communication, Leadership, Management, Motivation, Neuroscience, Organizational Development, Science | Permalink | Comments (2)
My interest in neuroscience and its implications for executive coaching, personal development and professional effectiveness led me to have lunch recently with Alvaro Fernandez, co-founder and CEO of SharpBrains, a market research firm that focuses on the application of neuroscience in healthcare, education and related fields. I was sufficiently inspired by my conversation with Alvaro that I went on to read The SharpBrains Guide to Brain Fitness, which he co-authored with Dr. Elkhonen Goldberg, his SharpBrains co-founder. (Full disclosure: I know Alvaro personally from business school, and he loaned me a copy of his book.)
The Guide, published earlier this year, is a great overview of current neuroscience research, with nearly 20 interviews with scientists, physicians, educators and others working in the field. A few key points that caught my attention:
1) Cognitive Training Can Lead to Behavioral Change
Dr. Judith Beck, author of Cognitive Therapy (an outstanding overview of this system of psychotherapy's principles and application), has been highly successful at helping people achieve and maintain weight loss, which she found was a secondary goal of many of her patients suffering from depression and anxiety. As Fernandez and Goldberg write in the Guide:
Cognitive therapy (CT)...is based on the idea that the way people perceive their experience influences their behaviors and emotions. The therapist teaches the patient cognitive and behavioral skills to modify his or her dysfunctional thinking and actions.
CT aims at improving specific traits, behaviors or cognitive skills, such as planning and flexibility, which are executive functions...
According to Dr. Beck, the main message of CT and its application in the diet world is that problems losing weight...reflect the lack of skills that can be acquired through training. What skills is Dr. Beck talking about? Mostly executive functions: the skills to plan in advance, motivate oneself, to monitor one's behavior, etc.
Dr. Beck is also interviewed in the Guide:
I found that many of the same cognitive and behavioral techniques that helped [my patients] overcome their other problems could also help them lose weight--and keep it off.
I became particularly interested in the problem of being overweight and was able to identify specific mindsets or cognitions about food, eating, hunger, craving, perfectionism, helplessness, self-image, unfairness, deprivation and others that needed to be targeted to help them reach their goal.
Although cognitive therapy's efficacy as a methodology extends well beyond its effectiveness in supporting weight loss, as a coach I find the connection compelling. Many of my clients and students wrestle with issues unrelated to mental health but nevertheless rooted in mindsets similar to the ones Beck lists above, particularly perfectionism. And while I am not a therapist and do not employ CT techniques per se, much of my work as a coach involves more general cognitive training intended to support and maintain behavioral change. At the most basic level, simply helping a client reframe an experience or situation by viewing it from an alternative perspective can allow them to feel quite differently as a result--and then to act in ways that better support their goals.
2) Experiential Learning Has a Neurological Basis
I've written before about the importance of experiential learning in my work as a coach and consultant. David Kolb (and his colleague Roger Fry) first developed the experiential learning model in the 1970s, and today Dr. James Zull, a biologist and biochemist at Case Western Reserve, believes that activity in different regions of the brain corresponds with the four stages of this model:
SharpBrains: How does learning happen?
Zull: There are 4 stages in the "Learning Cycle." Stage One: We have a concrete experience. Stage Two: We develop reflective observations and connections. Stage Three: We generate abstract hypotheses. Stage Four: Then we actively test these hypotheses.
In the fourth stage, we have a new concrete learning experience, and a new Learning Cycle ensues. In other words, we get information (activating the sensory cortex), make meaning of that information (in the back integrative cortex), create new ideas from these meanings (in the front integrative cortex), and act on those ideas (using the motor cortex.) From this, I propose that there are four pillars of learning: gathering, analyzing, creating and acting. This is how we learn.
On a tangential note, I'm also struck by the fact that Zull goes on to say that, "Learning in this way requires effort and getting out of our comfort zones. A key condition for learning is self-driven motivation, a sense of ownership. To feel in control, to feel that one is making progress, is necessary for this Learning Cycle." Executive coaching is rarely successful unless the client is willing to stretch beyond their comfort zone, and it's never successful unless the client feels a sense of ownership over the process.
3) Structured Learning Supports Peak Performance
Dr. Brett Steenbarger is a professor of psychiatry at SUNY Upstate Medical University, as well as a financial trader with over 30 years of experience in the markets. His current area of research is "how to enhance cognitive and emotional development among traders to help them become more successful." Steenbarger is interviewed in the Guide:
SharpBrains: What is the premise of your new book, "Enhancing Trader Performance"?
Steenbarger: The premise is that elite performers in highly competitive fields share common traits... The elite performers are most distinguished by the structure of their learning process... Traders typically devote little time to practice and a structured learning process. I want to encourage them to see that "learning on the job" is not a substitute for breaking down skills into components, drilling these, receiving feedback about performance, and making continuous modifications and improvements.
In every field, elite performers devote more time to practice than to the actual performance. To perform at the highest level, you need to protect and optimize practice and learning time.
Specifically, Steenbarger recommends that traders who seek to improve their performance make use of 1) simulation and biofeedback tools, 2) reflection and regular feedback, and 3) mentors and coaches. I'm struck by the parallel with the Leadership Labs we run for first-year MBA students at Stanford. In a series of classes in their first Quarter in school, small groups of 8 students each go through simulations and role-plays that evoke how they respond in challenging situations, give each other feedback on their effectiveness, and work with a second-year "Leadership Fellow" who serves as a facilitator and mentor to the group. (As a "Leadership Coach," I, in turn, work with groups of the second-year Fellows to help guide them through the experience.)
Of course, perhaps it's no surprise that a coach recommends an expert who recommends coaching! But at least I try to walk the talk--I support my own professional development through such structured learning experiences as having my own coach (who I see every few weeks), joining 3 other coaches for monthly conference calls (a new practice I just started), and being a member of a monthly group that meets in person to support each other, provide feedback and work on our interpersonal skills (although this Fall evening classes have conflicted with my group time :-P )
But the key finding for me is the inherent value in rigorous, structured learning, whatever form it takes. If that inspires you to go out and retain a coach, great--but if it inspires you to keep a notebook on your bedside table and jot down a few lines before turning out the light, that's great, too.
4) Cognitive Training Enhances Attention
"Attention" is obviously a key cognitive skill, but we typically apply the term somewhat loosely to three distinct processes, as described by Dr. Michael Posner, an emeritus professor of neuroscience from the University of Oregon and a leading expert in cognitive neuroscience:
SharpBrains: Can you explain the brain basis for what we usually call "attention"?
Posner: One of our major findings, thanks to neuroimaging, is that there is not one single "attention," but three separate functions of attention with three separate underlying brain networks... 1) Alerting: Helps us maintain an alert state. 2) Orienting: Focuses our senses on the information we want... 3) Executive attention: Regulates a variety of networks, such as emotional responses and sensory information... Executive attention is...the ability to manage attention towards [goal-oriented executive functions], towards planning... [Later in the interview, Posner stresses that "it is clear that executive attention...(is)...critical for success in school..."]
SharpBrains: Tell us now about your recent research on attention training.
Posner: Several training programs have been successful in improving attention in normal adults and in patients suffering from different pathologies...
Let me add that we have found no ceiling for abilities such as attention, including among adults. The more training, even with normal people, the higher the results.
The topic of attention is also prominent in the Guide's interview with Dr. Daniel Gopher, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Technion, a scientist who's worked on cognitive performance programs with the Israeli military and the NBA:
SharpBrains: Please summarize your research findings...
Gopher: In short, I'd summarize by saying that cognitive performance can be substantially improved with proper training. It is not rigidly constrained by innate, fixed abilities. Cognitive task analysis enables us to extract major cognitive skills in any task. Attention control and attention allocation strategies are critical determinants in performing at top level in complex, real-time decision environments. Those skills, and other associated ones, can be improved through training. Research shows that stand-alone, inexpensive PC-based training is effective to transfer and generalize performance.
In other words: 1) Attention is a complex phenomenon comprised of 3 distinct processes; 2) The specific process of executive attention and the sub-tasks of attention allocation and control are critical to success in cognitively demanding environments, and 3) Inexpensive computer training has been shown to improve attention-related cognitive performance.
So should we all be using these cognitive training tools? And if so, which ones? Well, those are the questions that SharpBrains is trying to answer, and I encourage you to check out their research. The $20 Guide is aimed at laypeople like me with a general interest in neuroscience's implications for our own fields, and their $1,300 Market Report is aimed at analysts and others with a professional interest in the "brain fitness software market" (and bigger budgets.)
Again, full disclosure: I know Alvaro Fernandez personally from business school, and he loaned me a copy of the Guide. That said, there's no way I'd ever promote a company unless I truly found their products useful, and the Guide is the best high-level overview of the "brain fitness" field I've seen.
Nov 11, 2009 in Attention, Books, Business, Change Management, Coaching, Communication, Leadership, Management, Motivation, Neuroscience, Productivity, Science | Permalink | Comments (0)

What's your most valuable resource?
Give this a little thought and you might say it's your time. But it's not time--it's attention.
True, we consume time when we pay attention to something. But we can free up more time by doing fewer things, or by doing some things faster, or just by stopping sooner. In a sense, time is elastic.
But attention is far less malleable. We're either focused on something or we're not. And we focus--I mean truly focus--on just one thing at a time. Don't talk to me about multitasking--it's a myth. Having lots of things in the background, occupying our "peripheral attention," isn't true multitasking any more than using our peripheral vision is true "multi-seeing." It just means that our focus is shifting more frequently--which can substantially decrease our efficiency as we cycle in and out of various tasks.
I spent 2005-06 as the Executive Director of AttentionTrust, a nonprofit that aspired to educate people about the value of their "attention data," i.e. the mountains of data generated by what we pay attention to (and what we ignore), while providing them with the means to actually capture and make use of this data by means of a Firefox plugin. I was reminded of that experience and of the crucial importance of attention by Sam Anderson's recent "In Defense of Distraction" in New York. Anderson interviews psychologist David Meyer, Director of the Brain, Cognition and Action Laboratory at the University of Michigan:
I begin, a little sheepishly, with a question that strikes me as sensationalistic, nonscientific, and probably unanswerable by someone who's been professionally trained in the discipline of cautious objectivity: Are we living through a crisis of attention?
Before I even have a chance to apologize, Meyer responds with the air of an Old Testament prophet. "Yes," he says. "And I think it's going to get a lot worse than people expect." He sees our distraction as a full-blown epidemic--a cognitive plague that has the potential to wipe out an entire generation of focused and productive thought. He compares it, in fact, to smoking. "People aren't aware what's happening to their mental processes," he says, "in the same way that people years ago couldn't look into their lungs and see the residual deposits."
Anderson goes on to discuss the "cognitive plague"--all the devices and channels that clamor for our attention today--in greater detail, as well as the increasing prevalence of "neuroenhancers" like Adderall that many people--particularly students--are using to improve their ability to focus and be productive, before circling around to suggest that distractions can actually be good things:
The truly wise mind will harness, rather than abandon, the power of distraction. Unwavering focus--the inability to be distracted--can actually be just as problematic as ADHD. Trouble with "attentional shift" is a feature common to a handful of mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and OCD. It's been hypothesized that ADHD might even be an advantage in certain change-rich environments... It's possible that we're all evolving toward a new techno-cognitive nomadism, a rapidly shifting environment in which restlessness will be an advantage again. The deep focusers might even be hampered by having too much attention: Attention Surfeit Hypoactivity Disorder.
I find Anderson's argument here compelling: the ability to let go and move on in a highly dynamic environment can be a valuable adaptive trait, and dogged determination in the same environment can be a sign of fatal inflexibility rather than laser-like focus. But I'd emphasize two points before embracing that idea fully.
First, sometimes we're distracted for vitally important reasons, as Anderson's conversation with productivity guru Merlin Mann makes clear:
For Mann, many of our attention problems are symptoms of larger existential issues: motivation, happiness, neurochemistry. "I'm not a physician or a psychiatrist, but I'll tell you, I think a lot of it is some form of untreated ADHD or depression," he says. "Your mind is not getting the dopamine or the hugs that it needs to keep you focused on what you're doing. And any time your work gets a little bit too hard or a little bit too boring, you allow it to catch on to something that’s more interesting to you."
When I'm distracted because I'm demotivated or unhappy, my distraction is neither a symptom of the "cognitive plague" nor a badge of honor befitting a "techno-cognitive nomad." Rather, it's an early warning sign of a deeper issue that needs to be addressed directly.
And second, what we pay attention to matters. In Nobody Knows My Name, James Baldwin wrote:
People pay for what they do, and still more for what they have allowed themselves to become. And they pay for it very simply; by the lives they lead.
What we pay attention to matters, because we pay for what we pay attention to, and we pay for it very simply; by the lives we lead.
Photo by hellosputnik. Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.
Aug 05, 2009 in Attention, Coaching, Motivation, Neuroscience, Productivity, Science | Permalink | Comments (2)
PLEASE NOTE that as of April 24, 2010, this list has been moved to my site's Top Posts page, where I'll be making all future updates.
I'll leave this post intact in case anyone's linking to it or it turns up in any search results, but I encourage you to visit my Top Posts page for the current list.
Here are a few posts from recent years that continue to resonate with me. Topics include executive coaching, personal and professional development, leadership, management, motivation, organizational culture, and the process of change. I'll update this list every few months, (Future updates will be made on my Top Posts page) but if you're looking for a post that's no longer shown here, you can always find it using the search box on the left.
Apr 06, 2007 in Advocacy, Attention, Books, Business, Change Management, Coaching, Communication, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Media, Motivation, Neuroscience, Organizational Development, Productivity, Science, Social Technology, Sports, Team-Building | Permalink | Comments (0)









