Neuroscience and organizational change – providing the evidence

In Hilary Scarlett’s Melcrum article of February 2013, Neuroscience – helping employees through change, she described some of the insights neuroscience is bringing to why people find organizational change difficult, and more usefully, what we can do to help people perform at their best during times of uncertainty.

In this follow up article, Hilary Scarlett and Mike Pounsford discuss the research they have conducted with four organizations, teaching leaders about applied neuroscience and then monitoring what difference it has made to them as leaders, particularly during organizational change.

What is neuroscience?

Neuroscience, the study of the nervous system including the brain, is set to transform our understanding of how people respond to the world of work. If we can understand the brain better, then we can help organizations, leaders, and all employees work more efficiently and effectively.

Why did we decide to do the research?

Just about everyone we speak to about applied neuroscience finds it appealing – who wouldn’t be interested in how we make better use of our brains? People kept telling us it was fascinating but wanted to hear examples of where applying neuroscience had really made a difference to leaders. Neuroscience is only just emerging from out of the lab and into the workplace. There are not yet many great stories or case studies. So, we decided to create our own by conducting some research. We approached four large but very different organizations – Lloyds Banking Group, BAE Systems, Orbit Housing Group and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) – and asked if we could work with a small group of leaders in each. All four readily agreed.

What did we do?

Around ten leaders from each organization volunteered to work with us. Before we started, we did some benchmarking quantitative research amongst their teams, testing the areas, behaviours and skills we would be exploring in the course. We also conducted measurement at the start and close of the workshop amongst participants to measure their immediate learning.

Leaders participated in a one-day course (more detail below) and we then had a follow-up call to answer questions and to discuss what the leader was going to put into practice. We stayed in touch to see what people were trying out and about four months later we held a follow-up half-day workshop to hear what they had done and what differences they had seen. We have just completed tracking research amongst the leaders’ teams.

What was the content of the course?

Designed to be brain friendly (short presentations, lots of breaks, discussions, activities to increase receptivity, mixture of inputs), the one-day course is based on the masterclass we run for, amongst others, Senior Civil Servants in the UK. The course looks at

1. Neuroplasticity: the brain’s ability to restructure; one of the best pieces of news from neuroscience is that it’s not all downhill once we reach the age of 25: we can continue to learn well into old age so long as we choose to (and indeed there are some skills we get better at). By the time you have finished reading this article, your brain might well have slightly restructured as a result of learning something new – that’s neuroplasticity at work.

2. Why our brains don’t like organisational change: our brains want to be able to predict and change prevents them from doing this and sends our brains into a ‘threat’ state where we can’t think straight and start to see threats in the workplace where they don’t even exist.

3. Performance: neuroscience deepens our knowledge about what helps the brain to be focused and creative eg reminding people of past successes generates dopamine in their brains and, in the right quantity, dopamine helps people to learn and to feel more positive.

4. The social brain: we have hugely underestimated our need for social connection at work. Research studies show that the brain uses the same network to deal with social pain as it does physical pain. Research studies also show that social rejection can reduce our IQ.

5. Staying calm under pressure: tools and techniques to stay positive and in control either in a crisis or in the face of constant change eg the very act of ‘labelling’ a negative emotion, saying out loud, ‘I am really angry about this.’ can help to reduce it.

6. SCARF – a useful, easy-to-remember planning tool from David Rock, based on neuroscience (see Hilary’s article for more details on SCARF)

7. Hints and tips on getting the best out of your brain: those small things that can make a difference to helping us each to work at our best eg before you check your emails in the morning, write a list of what you want/need to get done that day. Emails are distracting!

What did the leaders do?

As a consequence of the workshop, leaders put all sorts of ideas into practice. Here are just a few examples. Some focused on themselves by eg improving the planning of their day, practising mindfulness (the ability to switch off that constant narrative that we all have in our heads), or allowing themselves some ‘downtime’ as this is when we tend to have those ‘aha’ moments. Others were struck by the impact of relationships on people’s ability to think at their best at work. One group chose to see how they could improve performance management conversations within the constraints of the current system. Their aim was that the appraisal should leave people in a frame of mind where they are able to perform better, not feel demotivated by the process. One looked at her and her team’s emails and the impact they might be having on people’s ability to focus at crucial times in the day. One pair tracked productivity as they put into practice what they had learned: over the three month period, they saw productivity consistently improve.

What difference did we see?

We measured the impact of the learning in four ways

1. The before and immediately after quantitative assessment on the day of the workshop (chart one illustrates feedback from one company) revealed the largest increases in:

1) Understanding of the impact of change on our brains (and the challenges it creates for leaders and those they lead)

2) Confidence that they could lead teams in “brain-friendly” ways3) Understanding of the impact of the threat response (generated by change

and/or uncertainty) on our ability to focus2. The qualitative assessment generated by our calls provided details of the actions

people were taking (see above). It also highlighted how learning about neuroscience provided:

1) A different lens through which to look at and understand people and their motivations (especially useful when holding appraisal and performance discussions)

2) Better understanding of people’s need for social connection at work, and the need to bring more people into the leader’s ‘ingroup’

3) Increased confidence in leading people, either by confirming and strengthening current “gut” instinct or by encouraging new approaches

4) Knowledge to equip them to manage their days more effectively eg brains tire easily so don’t leave hard decisions until the end of the day.

3. We asked for feedback from the leaders’ team members to explore behavioural shifts before the first workshop and repeated this approximately six months later. The same team members provided feedback before and after. This feedback was anonymous and provided on an individual basis, but for the purpose of this article we compared all the before and after feedback – see chart two. The data illustrates:

1) Positive shifts in all but one of the measures suggesting a positive impact for the workshop and follow-up conversations

2) Leaders being seen by their teams to be more open, focussing on positives, listening, giving people more autonomy (less micro managing) and helping to build resilience.

4. Business performance, which was the toughest to measure. We received widespread feedback from participants that they had found the learning helpful and they believed it had made a difference. But what about the evidence? Two stories stood out:

1) 70% improvement in cost-performance over a period of some two months as a result of applying the learning. A pair of leaders in a manufacturing area adopted a different approach to their weekly “affordability forum” which engaged some of their teams in coming up with a raft of improvements following two years of “flat lining” on cost

2) The generation of a number of cross-organisational sales leads by using the learning to develop better relationships between two customer-facing parts of the business.

What lessons for communications and change management professionals?

Organisations and leaders in the UK are struggling with change and performance as never before, driven by digital delivery, the pace of innovation, globalisation, cost cutting, more

competition, regulation etc. Change theories and models abound. Neuroscience provides a science-based approach, which appeals to some because it provides a harder edge to the arguments about how to manage people during change. Learning about how our brains work can help us manage ourselves and lead people through change in more effective ways. It provides important insights into how we respond to change, what makes it easier for us to cope with uncertainty, what helps us focus, what affects our motivation and openness to change.

The application of neuroscience works at individual, team and organisational levels. The research here involved just a handful of leaders from four different organisations all of which claimed significant benefits from the experience.

Hilary Scarlett’s work spans Europe, North America and Asia and concentrates on organizational change and employee engagement. She is a consultant and frequent speaker on applied neuroscience. Her book on neuroscience and organizational change will be published in 2016. www.scarlettassoc.com

Mike Pounsford is an executive and large group facilitator who specialises in employee engagement and change projects for a range of international clients. He founded Couravel in 2001. www.couravel.com

CHART ONE: Executive feedback on their learning from one participating company

I know how to organise my day to get the best out of my brain

I understand the impact of feeling excluded at work on employees’ ability to think

I know how to stay calm at work when under pressure

I understand the impact of the ‘threat response’ on our brains’ ability to focus at work

I understand what distracts the brain at work

I know how to get my brain to focus at work

I know how to help others to focus at work

I feel confident that I can lead my team in a ‘brain-friendly’ way

If leaders understand neuroscience it will help them to be better leaders

I understand the impact of micro-managing

I understand the impact of choice on the brain

I understand the impact of change on our brains

Mindfulness is an important skill for leaders

I can apply what I have learned today to my work

I believe all leaders would benefit from understanding the application of neuroscience

As a result of today, I have more techniques to help people focus at work

As a result of today I feel better equipped to help people perform at their best at work

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

After Before

Scale reflects strength of agreement 1.0 = 100% strongly disagree; 5.0 = 100% strongly agree

CHART TWO: Feedback from people who work for the executives (before = before attending workshop; after = approx. six months later)Scale reflects strength of agreement and is adjusted for negative statements: higher “score” always represents a more positive response (e.g. on the question ‘sometimes micro-manages’ the length of line represents strengths of disagreement). This chart ranks largest positive swings in opinion.

25. Could be better at planning ahead

29. Tends to get distracted at work

19. Provides clarity for the team

26. Gives me the flexibility to do the job my way

27. Supports me

12. Is good at recognising good work

30. Challenges and provides stretch for me

9. Makes every team member feel a valued member of the team

20. Encourages me to make key decisions

23. Stays calm under pressure

11. Understands what motivates me

10. Is open with information

33. Sometimes fails to listen well

17. Helps the team stay resilient during change

18. Tends to focus on what people have got wrong rather than on what they have done well

14. Sometimes micro-manages

3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60

AfterBefore