A while ago I wrote an entry about Positive Feedback Loops. This video tells a story of the power of giving people positive feedback. And, if you watch carefully, you might even notice Angelina Jolie’s brother in a supporting role.

So, take 16 minutes out of the pre-Christmas rush and enjoy!

People are surprised when I don’t answer a ringing phone and instead stay focused on our discussion. The humble answering machine also serves a purpose.
Not answering the phone (or using the blackberry or laptop) offers a few benefits: first, we can discuss and work more productively. Secondly, the meeting can usually finish sooner. Thirdly, I send my meeting partners a clear signal that I value the working relationship and their presence.

One client fines people €20 if their mobile phone rings during a meeting. If they answer, it costs €50! Imagine a working world where we are so present that such rules are unnecessary.

In today’s New York Times, Daniel Goleman discusses recent neuroscience research on e-mails and online behaviour. Online, our brains lack the visual cues needed for social communication, leading to what psychologists call “online disinhibition effect”. In face-to-face interaction, the brain’s centre for empathy processes cues and signals from the discussion and modulates the unruly impulses sent out by our amygdala. Without such moderation, it is too easy to send a hasty or intemperate e-mail (“flame”) before a moment’s reflection would let us delete the mail, unsent.

One suggested solution is to use video or web-cam, so that we can pick up more signals. Goleman describes another: a poster of a traffic or stoplight beside the monitor. I learned from my project experience and adopted an old-fashioned solution. I begin my e-mails by writing, “Dear X”, hit return three times and then write my closing, e.g. “Best regards”. Now I start to write the content of the mail, reminded that it has the formality of a letter.

The book explains how social intelligence develops and its impact. Many of the examples will be familiar to readers of Gladwell’s “Blink”, since many of the experiments described there are viewed from another perspective. Much of the research reported stems from the medical, educational and correctional fields, giving food for thought about how (in-)effectively society is organised. For example, research shows the positive effect on a partient’s well-being that a doctor has by entering into an “I-You” rather than an “I-It” relationship, i.e. treating them as a person. A couple of days after reading about this, a friend of mine was told in an off-the-cuff remark that her husband’s tumour was malignant rather then benign. Very “I-It”.
The book doesn’t spend too much time on leadership (roughly pp 275-281). What it has to say gives food for thought. Three points to focus on:

1. Many leadership theories are based on the idea that people pay more attention to that the most powerful person does an says. Goleman reports research and anecdotes that show how a leader’s emotional state is infectious. One study reported that the team’s effectiveness and performance correlates to the team leader’s mood. Even worse, a boss in a bad mood leads to panicked efforts to please them, resulting often in poor decisions and strategy selection.
2. Employees more easily recall, and in more detail, negative interactions with a boss than positive ones. Thus it’s easier to spread demotivation. If only for business reasons, it makes sense for a leader to react with empathy rather than indifference.
3. People feel secure around bosses who are trustworthy, empathic and connected, who make them feel calm, appreciated and inspired. Thus it is necessary the leaders learn how to shield their staff and buffer the pressure that comes from above in the organisation. This needs to be balanced against aneed to help people grow and take on more challenges, which is easier to do in a secure environment.

Goleman offers a challenge to leaders everywhere – good leaders will do well to take it up.