Brain networks & management behaviours

‘Your brain at work’ by Adam Waytz and Malia Mason, Harvard Business Review, July/August 2013

I chose this article to review because it seems to challenge some of the conventional thinking on the way in which the brain works.  It casts doubt on theories that we have come to accept as conventional wisdom, for instance that there are left and right hand sides of the brain that control different types of behaviour. 

The article starts by telling us that there is in fact a high level of controversy among neuroscientists and that any new claim to know how the brain works is likely to be challenged by one group or other.  Contrary to what we have been led to believe, the understanding of the brain’s workings is still in its infancy.  Therefore any claim that we can analyse brain functions and decide who will be the better leader or that one part of the brain leads to particular skills, is a gross over-simplification.

Having established this point early on, the authors then go on to put forward their own ideas, making the claim that they have some of the answers.  This seems to be in conflict with their introduction but I nevertheless read on, interested to learn about their theory, their research base and the management implications that justify publication in the HBR. 

The article’s basic argument is that the brain is too complex to be divided into particular sections, it is a number of networks and all the separate parts are constantly interacting.  The authors then move on - rather quickly in my view - to state that different kinds of network interaction will lead to better understanding of management behaviours. 

I wondered whether this was just another attempt to over-simplify and look for easy answers;  it is interesting that the authors admit that other neuroscientists will contest their claims and that much of their science is still under debate, surely a sign of insecurity.  It would have been more convincing if we had had more information on the basis of their research, assuming that some took place.

Nevertheless, it is worth examining their ideas.  Apparently there are at least fifteen networks and-sub-networks of which the article focusses on just four, the ones that have the most obvious implications for management.  These four are the networks of Default, Reward, Affect and Control.  The Default network is when the mind is ‘zoning out’ and not focussed on any particular fault or task; apparently this is a good state for breakthrough innovations and justifies companies giving the people ‘thinking time’ away from the day to day pressures, as is the practice in many high tech companies such as Apple and Google.  The authors make the valid point that it is difficult to achieve this detachment and to measure its effectiveness.

As you would expect, the Reward network is about motivation and the suggestion is that intangible rewards such as status and social approval can be as important as money.  My reaction on reading this was that it is hardly new, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs made this point many years ago.  The only new element seems to be that fairness is also a key motivator, and that excessively large rewards paid to a few at the top will demotivate those who do not benefit.  I can see how this could be useful to a certain kind of politician but less sure of the implications for businesses which have to attract the best senior management.  Another interesting argument was that this network tends to make people reject goals that are unrealistically ambitious and that there should be more flexibility and use of multiple objectives.

The Affect network is about hunches which, it is argued, are often triggered by past events that are not obvious to the decision maker.  Therefore such thinking should be encouraged and embraced rather than being questioned and rejected.  This applies to negative as well as positive hunches; sometimes intangible doubt about a decision hides past experiences that cannot be explicitly recalled.  The Control network is the most difficult of the four to grasp; it is a subconscious influence that keeps our mind on our goals, reining in our emotions and instincts, to some extent countering the impact of the other networks.  For instance our ‘gut feels’ from the Affect network are balanced with the reality of our objectives.

It is very easy to get carried away when reading this type of analysis, just as you can get carried away by personality questionnaires that claim to analyse anyone’s behaviour by the answers to 10 generic questions.  You begin to relate your own experiences to the theories and find yourself being sucked in to simplistic explanations.  I found the article interesting and readable but couldn’t help asking the question ‘how do you know?’, particularly when the introduction had stressed the limitations of neuroscience and the danger of simplistic conclusions.

However, I am no neuroscientist so it would be interesting to hear the conclusions of others who are more expert in this area than me.  The responses to the article on the HBR website are generally positive but maybe the fellow neuroscientists are preparing their response; it will be interesting to see.

Read the article here