Episode 116 · 20 July 2024 · 54:57
Why our brains don't like change, with Hilary Scarlet
Featuring Hilary Scarlet
Why our brains don't like change, with Hilary Scarlet
0:000:00
Tip: click any timestamp below to jump there and keep playing.
Enjoying the show? Subscribe for free
Chapters & timestamps
Click any timestamp to jump the player to that moment.
Intro and guest introduction
What is applied neuroscience?
Why the brain resists change
interview#change-management#brain-resistance#neuroscience-of-change
Choice is the key to change
The social brain explained
Why we're fearful of change
Has change changed in the last 5 years?
interview#change-management#workplace-trends#organizational-change
The science of decision-making
What leaders get wrong about change
When change isn't working — knowing when to stop
interview#change-implementation#knowing-when-to-stop#project-management
Working with GCHQ
The SPACE model and individual motivators
Where to find Hilary and wrap-up
Show notes
Why Our Brains Don't Like Change — with Hilary Scarlett
Guest: Hilary Scarlett — consultant and author specialising in applied neuroscience, author of Neuroscience for Organizational Change.
Why does organisational change feel so hard — even when it's good news? The answer lives in your brain's energy budget.
Hilary joins Al and Leanne to explore the neuroscience of change: why our brains treat workplace transformation as a threat, why choice is the secret ingredient, and what leaders get wrong when they roll out change programs. She shares real-world insights from her work helping GCHQ manage change, breaks down the SPACE model, and explains why the "social brain" means your team's perception of fairness matters as much as the strategy itself.
Top 3 Takeaways
Change is an energy problem, not just a motivation problem. Your brain uses a disproportionate amount of energy, so it's wired to resist anything that demands more of it — including organisational change. Leaders who understand this reduce the cognitive load, not just the PowerPoints.
Choice is the antidote to resistance. People with an internal locus of control — the belief they can influence their outcomes — cope better with change. Even small choices can shift people from feeling changed at to being part of the change.
The social brain is always watching. Fairness, status and belonging are processed as survival signals. If people feel treated unfairly during a change, their brains register it as a threat — and no amount of strategy will override that.
More From Hilary Scarlett
- Book, Neuroscience for Organizational Change — use code AHRNOC for 20% off
- Website: Scarlett and Grey
- LinkedIn: Hilary Scarlett
(Full links available in the episode description.)
Connect With Us
Get in touch, book a call, or find Al and Leanne on LinkedIn — all in one place: truthliesandwork.com/connect
Mental health support: findahelpline.com — UK: Samaritans 116 123 · Mind 0300 123 3393 — US: 988 — Australia: Lifeline 13 11 14
Truth, Lies & Work is part of the HubSpot Podcast Network.
Full transcript
Expand full transcript
Al ElliottThe dirty little secret is that most businesses think they know their customers. They have the data, the records, the history, but it's scattered across 3 teams and 4 systems. And in our case, it's about 216,000 spreadsheets, which means nobody can actually use it.
Leanne ElliottWhat you should be doing is using HubSpot, because why? HubSpot connects it all— every interaction, every support ticket, every conversation— into one platform every team can work from. So when sales talks to a customer, marketing already knows the full story. And when you know more, you grow more.
Al ElliottNice. Check out hubspot.com, the agentic customer platform for growing businesses.
Leanne ElliottHello and welcome to Truth, Lies and Work, the award-winning psychology podcast brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals. My name is Leanne. I'm a chartered psychologist that specialises in business.
Al ElliottMy name is Al. I am just an ordinary person who has some businesses.
Leanne ElliottWe are here to help you simplify the science of work. We're still working on our introduction. I think it might be a job for August when we've got a bit more downtime. I'm reluctant to say business psychologist. I understand it sounds sexy and it vibes with it all, but I worked really hard to become chartered, you know.
Al ElliottIt just doesn't work though. You're a chartered occupational psychologist. I'm a business owner. We need to, we need to rework this out. But I tell you what we'll do. We will float in the pool in August and we will have a beer and we'll just thrash it all out.
Leanne ElliottYes, we will. Talking of changes, um, nice segue.
Al ElliottNice.
Leanne ElliottThank you. Today we are talking about change. We're talking about organizational change, but specifically we are talking about how the brain deals with change with an incredible guest, Hilary Scarlet, a true icon in neuroscience and behavioral science and the author of one of my most favorite books, and most loved of all time. Very, very excited for this episode.
Hilary ScarletYeah.
Al ElliottNow, in terms of change, if you're a leader, a business owner, you're in HR, you're in management, then I'm guessing some of the questions you've probably asked yourself when it comes to someone implementing change is, what were they actually thinking when they said this? Why would they do that? And also, if you are the one implementing change, perhaps you don't understand why people are annoyed with the change. I mean, just little things. Why are people losing it? As a business owner, you're going to find people's reaction to change irritating and unproductive at times.
Leanne ElliottYes, and having been involved in thousands of interviews over the years, I know that you candidates like to say things like, I love change, it's so exciting, I thrive in ambiguous and uncertain environments, I'm really adaptable, that's my biggest strength. Well, the truth is change is hard, and when your manager throws you into a change without your consultation or any sense of control, you get annoyed, act irrationally, or even quit. So yes, understanding change is really important, and if you can understand the science of change, you'll not only execute it more effectively in your organisation, you'll build the emotional intelligence and empathy needed to lead people through change with high levels of performance and engagement.
Al ElliottAbsolutely. So today we are diving into how our brains manage change, and as a leader, what you can do to execute change that is brain-friendly. So to help us do this, we have, as Leanne mentioned, a neuroscience expert joining us today. Our guest is an international speaker, a consultant, a Cambridge graduate— fancy, fancy— and an author on change management and neuroscience. Her book Neuroscience for Organisational Change is literally the bible for any organisation who are thinking of making changes. And this also includes some huge brands she's worked with, as well as GCHQ, basically the UK's headquarters for Super spies, as far as I can work out. Real James Bond stuff.
Leanne ElliottYeah, so there's kind of, there's 3 main talking points, 3 things that we're answering, because obviously neuroscience can seem a little bit complex, but what Hilary is phenomenal at is simplifying this into a way that we can easily understand it and apply it within our organisation. But today we'll be covering how our brains react to change, why people are fearful of change, and how leaders can manage change better using rewards. We'll finish up with some interesting examples from Hilary's career, including how she helped the UK Secret Service to think differently about change. So let's go and meet the eloquent, brilliant co-founder of Scarlet and Grey, Hilary Scarlet, and find out more about how our brains react to change.
Hilary ScarletMy name is Hilary Scarlet. I'm a consultant and author with a particular interest in applied neuroscience. My career has kind of evolved. I didn't start out here at all. Um, yeah, originally I, I studied Arabic and French at university and thought I was going to go into the Foreign Office and then decided at the tender age of about 21 that wasn't for me. So it's kind of evolved, but I did kind of, I guess, fell into kind of change management and loved it, especially the people side of change. But I did have a frustration as to why those of us who worked in the people side of change were always called in at the very last minute.
Al ElliottSo I'm going to start with the obvious question saying, what is applied neuroscience? That sounds super fancy.
Hilary ScarletSo neuroscience, at its simplest, is the study of the nervous system, including the brain, both in human beings and animals. And applied neuroscience, in terms of my area of applied neuroscience, is applying it to organizations. What can we learn from that to apply it to organizations? And in my particular area of interest, particularly organizations going through change. So what can we learn from neuroscience that might help us when we're going through change?
Al ElliottWhy does the brain naturally seem to resist change?
Hilary ScarletI mean, some change we do like, but I think organizational change can be particularly difficult because it takes away some of the key things our brains look for. So one of the things our brains look for is certainty and prediction. They want to know what's coming up so they can better protect us. And change obviously takes away the brain's ability to predict. I don't know what's coming up. I don't know what might happen. Another thing change takes away way is often it means we know we're going to have to do something differently. And on the whole, our brains like habits. Our brains tend to like to be quite lazy if they can, in a sense. And so they like habits. They quite like doing things the same old way because it feels less effortful to the brain. It also— research also shows it feels less stressful to the brain when we're kind of in habit mode. So change does take away Things that the brain wants. Also, a sense of autonomy, control is really important to the brain as well. I think quite often, especially when people are lower down in the organization, people might lack that sense of control over what's coming up, what's going to happen, and that too is difficult for the brain. So various key factors that change takes away from the brain, the brain wants.
Al ElliottThere are some people who seem to enjoy change, particularly like the entrepreneurial people or people who like challenges. So do they genuinely, on a neuroscience level, enjoy change? Or is there just something broken about them? What makes them different?
Hilary ScarletPeople do have different levels of tolerance, for sure. Some people do enjoy change. And all of our brains like a bit of novelty, because boredom also is a stress to the brain. So all our brains like a bit of novelty. But I think we do have different thresholds. I also think there's a big difference between change that we can control and that we have chosen, as opposed to change that's imposed upon us. One of the— I think this is one of the examples in the book— when I was working with the technology team in one of the big investment banks, and they were saying to me, how come everyone wants the latest iPhone, the latest gadget, the latest device? And yet, when it comes to changing the technology system at work, everybody hates it. I said, well, a big difference there is choice. If I choose to get the latest phone or whatever it might be. I've chosen that, it's my choice. Technology at work often is imposed upon us and we find it more difficult. So I think that bit about choice is really important. Change that we have chosen makes a big difference to us.
Leanne ElliottChoice, it really is the key to change. Very few people actively like change at work, but as Hilary said, when they feel like they have some control over the change, then it much more likely to work better. Control and choice is a really well-researched area of human behaviour, but there are 3 headlines that are worth knowing about in the context of change at work. The first is locus of control, developed by Julian Rotter in the 1960s. This concept differentiates between internal and external locus of control— loci of control, I want to say.
Al ElliottYeah, that sounds about right.
Leanne ElliottYeah. So people with an internal locus of control believe they can influence their life outcomes through their actions. They have the power, while those with an external locus of control feel that their lives are controlled more by external factors like fate or people around them. Our perceived locus of control can change based on our environment. So workplaces that provide employees with autonomy, responsibility, and opportunities for decision-making tend to promote an internal locus of control, and this is important because research shows us consistently that an internal locus of control is associated with higher motivation, better stress management, and improved mental health. The second concept that is important in this context is self-efficacy. This was proposed by Albert Bandura, and self-efficacy is a belief in our abilities to succeed in specific situations, like a significant change at work. So high self-efficacy is a real energy source for for us. It enhances motivation and resilience, enabling us to tackle challenges more effectively. And how do we boost self-efficacy? Well, giving employees autonomy or choice over how they accomplish tasks can enhance it, as employees will feel their actions have a direct impact on the outcome. But of course, we can have too much of a good thing, which brings us to our final concept of choice and control, which is choice overload. Choice overload is when we're presented with too many options. If the number of options becomes overwhelming, then we may struggle to make decisions at all, and this is called decision paralysis. It can delay actions and responses and ultimately hinder our ability to adapt to new situations quickly. So yeah, it's a delicate balance. We need to give people choice and control and confidence that they can make decisions, but not too much. much. And that's the understanding, the psychology of change, the psychology of decision-making. That is why it is really, really important.
Al ElliottThere's an old adage in business: people hate to be sold to but love to buy. And that's the crux of what we're talking about here. When someone feels like they've got control over the outcome, even if this is perceived control, then it's much more likely they'll be invested. So here's the not-so-secret secret: by including your team in the suggested changes, you'll have much better chance of things going smoothly. Like Leanne said, all of this is down to psychology, but not many of us normals— that's me, not Leanne, she's a superstar— not many of us normals have fully grasped this yet. So I had to ask Hilary, what else are we getting wrong about human psychology and how the brain works? And also, what the heck is a social brain? What do people mainly get wrong when they think about how the brain works?
Hilary ScarletThere's the myths around, you know, do we only use 10% of our brain? No, we use all of, all of our brains. But that said, it's interesting, the brain's capacity to keep on learning is certainly there. So I guess that's, yeah, I think that's again good news for all of us, that capacity to keep on learning, whatever it might be. So I guess one of the other interesting areas is just how much energy the brain uses. I think that's another one to be aware of, is that our brains are 2% of our body weight, but they use up 20% of our—
Leanne ElliottEnergy.
Hilary Scarletenergy. And it's almost as if our brains know that they use this disproportionate amount of energy. So again, it goes back to that point about our brains. If they can, they quite want to be lazy and like habits. But just being aware of that sheer amount of energy that brains use. And I think just on that point also, one of the neuroscientists I work with reckons we've only got 2 great hours a day in terms of the And he's got a point, probably no one would put it more than 4 great hours. So just being aware of mental energy, how you top it up, not pushing on through, I think, as many of us try and do, get to our desk in the morning, especially I think if we're working from home, that important thing about getting outside, getting into nature, having breaks. So the importance of, you know, just, you know, what kind of decisions are you trying to make at the end of a day when your brain's already quite tired and quite frazzled?
Leanne ElliottYeah.
Hilary ScarletThere's some other really interesting research actually about blood sugar levels. I think, you know, we think about all sorts of things that affect our decision-making, but another really interesting experiment done by Dan Sieger and team where they looked at over 1,000 decisions that were being made by judges, people coming before them for parole. And they could see it vary between about 0% and 70%, your chance of getting parole. And initially they thought it was all to do with circadian rhythm, so time of day. And then they realized, no, it's more frequent than that. It was going up and down much more often than that. And then they realized it was what was probably connected was when the judge had last eaten. So if you were before the judge at 9:00 AM in the morning and the judge has had his or her breakfast, you had about a 70% chance of getting parole. It dropped down, dropped down, and dropped down to about 11. The judge had a break, had a cup of coffee, had something to eat, went back up to 70%, then dropped down, dropped down, dropped down before lunch, and then back up again after lunch. And it's just the suggestion that— It's not to say which decisions are right or wrong, but it's just interesting impact of things like blood sugar levels on our decision-making. And the thinking being when our blood sugar levels are low, we are less likely to take risks. So I think there's interesting implications for all of us at work in that sense. If we're interviewing people, if we're doing people's appraisals, whatever it might be, are we being as fair to the person we see at 11:00 AM as perhaps the person we saw at 9:00 AM? So just being aware of these things that might be influencing our decision-making. without us even being aware of it. I think that is really useful.
Al ElliottYou've got a term in the book that I'd never come across, and it was called the social brain. Can you just explain what that is to someone who's not an expert?
Hilary ScarletWell, there are lots of neuroscientists who I learn from who, in terms of the social brain, and I think part of this is about we are deeply, deeply social creatures, more than I think we realize. And I think this is particularly important at work because I think on the whole, we get it in our personal lives that relationships matter, and on When relationships are good, life is pretty good. But I do think historically in organizations, we've kind of expected employees to walk through the workplace door or turn Teams or Zoom on in the morning, whatever it might be, and that we're professionals. So relationships shouldn't matter to us in quite the same way, but they do. We are deeply social creatures, and there's lots of really interesting research from the world of psychology and neuroscience about just how social we are and various reasons Why? One of the reasons is we, as humans, we start out as babies, and as mammals, we wouldn't make it through our first years, months and years of life without somebody looking out for us, looking after us. So, babies will scream and cry when they're tired, when they're hungry, but also when they're separated from their caregiver, because babies absolutely know, is somebody interested in me? If they are, I'm okay. If not, I'm not okay. And I think that kind of carries on in us throughout life, less overtly, but at work, you know, is my manager interested in me? If they are, I'm okay.
Al ElliottYeah.
Hilary ScarletIf not, I'm not okay. So I think it's partly that. I think also, again, because in many ways our brains kind of still think they're out on the savanna. In many ways, that's what they're better adapted to. It's kind of where they think they still are in many ways. And again, if you're out on the savanna, if you're part of a tribe, you're much more likely to make it. You're much more likely to survive. And survival is the key goal for the brain. So if the tribe throws you out, That's a threat to your survival. So again, we are constantly checking out subconsciously, do I fit in? Do I belong? Do I feel part of the team or not? If I am, that's a positive. If not, that's a threat to my survival. So there's various reasons why our brains are deeply social. And I think one of the most remarkable findings, I think, from the world of neuroscience is that although we think of social pain and physical pain as being quite distinct. Our brains don't differentiate in quite the same way. It's pretty much the same parts of the brain that process physical pain and social pain because both matter in terms of survival. And that's to the extent one of the most remarkable pieces of research is paracetamol that we would take for our headaches also has been shown to reduce social pain. So social pain is that real to the brain. There's nothing soft about it. And, and there's lots of research from the world of psychology about showing just the impact of feeling socially rejected in some way, the impact on our ability to think, our staying power, our resilience, our levels of lethargy, those kind of things. So fMRI is what, what we often use in, in neuroscience. Um, and, um, yeah, there's Matt Lieberman and Naomi Eisenberg, amongst other, other neuroscientists, have done research where people are in a scanner, in an fMRI scanner and they're playing this kind of— it was quite boring— cyberball. You think you're throwing a ball to 2 other people and they're throwing it back to you. And then in the experiment, suddenly the 2 other players stop throwing you the ball. You don't get it again for the rest of the game. These 2 are just playing with each other and ignoring you. And what they can see in people's brains when that happens is the social pain, the pain network in the brain is activated, particularly amongst those people who care So we all care a bit, but some people care more than others if they're excluded from that game. So absolutely, you can see in brain scans that when people are socially excluded, that the pain network is activated in the brain. There's kind of 2 networks in the brain that are anti-correlated. When one is on, the other is off. When one is on, we tend to be more in social mode, people mode. When the other is on, we tend to be more in task mode. And we say when one is on, the other is off. And as with all things with the brain, the more you practice one, the better you get at that. And research suggests that a lot of us at work are in task mode. So it's those parts of the brain that get developed more at the expense of the social network in the brain. And to be a really good leader, all of us, what you want to be, you want both networks to be activated when you can, and to be very flexible between the two. That's the key thing, is about to switch quickly between the two. So I think that just brings home to, if we get too much into task mode at work, which I think probably a lot of us do, we're not developing the social network as much. I mean, all the research from the world of neuroscience and other areas too is about— is what we want for people to be at work is engaged and curious about work and what we're doing, and that is much more associated with what's called the reward network in the brain. So being told what to do, being given orders, micromanaged, just turns off the reward network in the brain. So you're absolutely right, all the work from the world of neuroscience would suggest that you want to engage with people, and lots of little things activate the reward network, just being listened to really well, things like that, simple things that we can all do, and it's those kind of things that help people perform better at work rather than, yeah, task mode, being told what to do.
Leanne ElliottWhy are we fearful of change? What is it on a neurological level that makes us so resistant to change? And since the pandemic, have we as humans become better at managing change? Let's rejoin the interview where Al puts this to Hilary.
Al ElliottI listened to a podcast this morning from a guy who's big on sales. He's done lots of research on sales, and he said The predominant reason for people not buying new software, i.e., changing, was they called it fear of missing out, FOMO, or he called it FUFU, fear of messing up. Now, that's not exactly the word he used. So we've got this idea that it's either you're worried you're going to mess up and get blamed for it, or you're worried you're going to miss out. I think that's too simplistic. So what is it that really that people are worried about when it comes to change?
Hilary ScarletI think, well, I think he touched on a point there, that messing up point, that again, there's wanting to feel that we're competent and we're I mean, everybody needs to have a positive narrative about themselves. We want to feel that we are okay. We're very aware of our reputation at work and what people think about and say about us. So, I think there is that fear of, will I be capable? Will I be competent? I know I can do the current systems and whatever, but if you're going to change the systems, will I mess up? Will I look foolish? So, I think he's got a point. We are worried about that. And you say also that point about, point about certainty as well, about wanting to know what is coming up and whether we'll be okay with it. But I think for a lot of people, it is, yes, I guess it is fear that we've talked about in terms of that. I think it can also— one of the things that we've become more aware of is when we're going through change is, will it feel fair? So I think it also, because we have a sense that there's going to be change around here in this organization. Yeah. Then I want to know I've got as good a chance as the next person at getting the job I want, or resource I want, or training I want. So, it does put pressure on relationships too. I think even colleagues who might have been good friends, who we might have known for many years, it will put a slight tension between them perhaps, because I do think when we're going through change, it's almost like we begin to look at the world of work through this filter of threat. And that we subtly, say even people who might be good friends, we might suddenly see them as being after the job I want or training I want. So it puts a pressure on relationships too. And I think it just generally changes how we see the world, that we start to see where there are threats that are even bigger than they really are. We start to see them where they don't even exist at all. And again, another example, working with some leaders who were about to go through And I was talking about how we kind of overreact to change quite often emotionally. And they were laughing because they said, yes, an email had recently gone out to some of this leadership team, but not to all of them. And suddenly, this had become an issue. Why have I not been copied on that email? Why have you not asked for my opinion? And they were laughing because they said it was something really trivial and unimportant. But when we're in this heightened state of emotion, these things seem much more more significant than they really are. So, it's one of those things I think we've got to all watch out for when we're going through change. Am I slightly overreacting to stuff because of the uncertainty that's around? Are other people perhaps slightly overreacting because of the uncertainty? And I think particularly at the moment, where not only at work is there so much change, but the world in general feels pretty uncertain as well. I think outside the workplace too, I think a lot of us probably are in this slightly heightened emotional state that we need to be aware of.
Al ElliottIf you'll forgive my weird question here, has change changed over the last 5 years?
Hilary ScarletYeah, I think it's a really interesting question. I think back 5 years ago how many of us were working as opposed to hybrid working, all the ways in which we're working now. I think it's done a couple of things. I think one, I say to people how incredibly flexible human beings are, and I think that came to March 2020, organizations, people very quickly where they could move to working online, and how incredibly flexible we are when we need to be. So I think that's the good news, that those kind of reminders to us that we are very adaptable creatures. At the same time, I think it's— yeah, a lot of research came out during that time about loneliness, the lack of social connection, and how difficult we find that. But I think I think change, I mean, I've been working in organizational change for many decades now, and certainly, I think in those decades, it's changed. I think, whereas 20, 30 years ago, we might have been working on change programs that had a beginning, a middle, and an end, I certainly think what's different now is change never ends. It's layers and layers of constant change. So, I think what's very different now is we don't get to that end of the change program. Phew, done it. We can kind of— we're steady state for a while. That never happens. So, I think what's very different for us all now is we need different skills in a way. We need to be flexible, we need to be resilient, we need to accept that there is going to be constant change, and to have the ability to be adaptable has become all the more important. Actually, interestingly, when I'm working in organizations, it is the people who've been through a lot of change who I think are more resilient. I can remember a while ago working with a bank where lots of redundancies were coming up. And actually, interestingly, it was the 40-somethings at that point who were more relaxed and resilient about it than the 20-somethings because they'd been through redundancies or those kind of things before. And when I was asking, is this the most difficult thing that's happened in your life? The people who'd been around working for 20 years or so kind of went, no, do you know what? I've been through worse. I think it's harder when we go through it the first time. Maybe we're going through more change. I think that does help us build up our resilience. I think it helps build up our belief, I can do it. I survived, I made it. It might not have been the most pleasant experience of my life, but I got through it. So I do think going through change is a really useful thing to do because it builds up our ability to be more resilient and to know that we can be flexible and we can adapt and we will be okay.
Al ElliottTell me about the science of decision-making. making. And I sense that you have a really good structured scientific approach to making decisions. Can you talk us through how you would do it?
Hilary ScarletWell, I think there's various bits to decision-making. And one, I guess, is about thinking about speed versus about content and information on which we base our decision-making. So partly, I guess, it's about— and we kind of have to weigh up, is it about speed and getting on with it, or is it about assembling more and more information and making those kinds of decisions, thinking which is appropriate, because we might make a different decision if we had more time. So I think that's one thing to think about, about speed versus that. I think there's all sorts of factors that can be useful in terms of decision-making. I mean, I use the SPACES model that's in the book, which I think is a useful base on which to make decisions or to plan. things around that. SPACE stands for 6 factors that if we've got them, we can focus, we can perform. If we haven't got them, our brains go into a negative place. So that's a useful kind of planning tool when trying to make decisions about events or those kind of things. The phrase is, if you've got a brain, you are biased. It's an uncomfortable truth, but it's what our brains all do. And research also shows even if we can go on unconscious bias training, the next time we're a bit stressed out or tired, we'll slip back into our biases. So I think one of the most useful things to do is to be aware of that. Our brains are biased. It's what they do. On the whole, those biases— our brains are confronted with tens of thousands of decisions every day, and we can't possibly consciously think through every decision. So on the whole, that kind of subconscious, quick decision-making that we're not even aware of is useful to us. But at the same time, that can bring in biases as well. So one of the most useful things I think to do is to be aware that we are biased. And it's partly why it's so important to have people around us with differing views and to encourage those differing views, because people will see the world differently. We all see the world differently. I think that's another key thing is that we all think we see reality, but we don't. We just see an interpretation that our brains give us that's based on past experience, current circumstances, personality. So I think there's that bit about stay humble. How I see the world is just how I see it, and that will bring biases. So being aware of that. And I think in the organization, it's impossible to overcome our biases. So I think we have to kind of put processes in place in the organization to help stop us from being biased. So little things like, I say to people, if you've got an important decisions, having somebody in the room that's the devil's advocate, that will question what you're saying, and it's their job to do that, so you're legitimizing it. And I think things like that are really useful to do just to stop the group from falling into their biases or the groupthink or whatever. So, those little things that trying to bring that. And research also does show, if we're working with people who are a lot like us, if you look around the room, we're on Teams or Zoom and everyone looks a bit like you, the message would be, be worried about that. Because when we are with people who are all a bit like us, our brains become even lazier because we tend to think, oh, they're all a bit like me, they're going to agree with me. Put people into a room who come from quite different backgrounds, it's slightly more uncomfortable for the brain, but it sharpens up the brain. I can't assume they're going to agree with me. So you actually get better levels of discussion and decision-making because actually it sharpens up people's brains. They've got to think about why they think what they do and be able to defend it and discuss it with people. So there's all sorts of things do affect that. Yeah, the biases that go into it, on the whole, they are quite helpful to us, that kind of, that, um, those shortcuts. But again, they will lead us into faulty decision-making. So again, going back to that point about people, we will very quickly, when we meet people, make snap decisions about They like me, or they're not like me. Do I like them? Do I not like them? And as I mentioned earlier, if we feel they're kind of not quite like us, if they're in our outgroup, we're much less kind towards them. We don't pay so much attention to what they have to say. We just process thoughts about them in different ways in our brains, as opposed to people who we feel are in our ingroup. And our brains will make these snap decisions very quickly. The good news again on that is that in-groups and out-groups are flexible, so we can change people's views pretty quickly about other people if their brains have quickly put them into that out-group. But there are lots of cases, I mean, there's lots of biases that do get in the way. That's the bias of carrying on with a project because we've been working on it for the last 6 months and we can't quite give up on it yet. And yet actually—
Leanne ElliottYeah.
Hilary Scarletstepping back, it might be better to stop it. That's the sunk cost bias. Maybe, or a little level, it's that feeling you go into a cinema and you're watching a film, you're watching a movie, and you realize about 15 minutes in, I'm really not enjoying this at all. The sensible thing to do would just walk out, get that hour and a half back of your life, walk out. But we don't because we spent however much money to buy that ticket. We kind of sit there. So it's these little biases like that just to be aware of it. Be it, say, Be it the cinema or be it at work in terms of projects or whatever. So, there's lots of biases that do get in our way and don't help us to actually perform at our best or work well with other people.
Leanne ElliottAfter this very short break, we're going to find out what managers get wrong about change and hear more about Hilary's experience of working with GCHQ, which is basically the UK spy headquarters. If you're from the UK, I know you've all seen Spooks. See you in a sec. Did you know that the UK's number one management podcast— that's us, by the way— and the UK's number one marketing podcast are both on the same podcast network?
Al ElliottWe actually have a lot in common. We both use behavioural science to help people do better at work.
Leanne ElliottAnd we both had to wrangle Rory Sutherland on an episode.
Al ElliottAnd 2 out of 3 of us are devilishly good-looking. And you're not gonna say which. Host of Nudge, UK's number one marketing podcast. It's brought to you— we need to do this in threes—
Leanne Elliottthe HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals.
Al ElliottSeamless, seamless. Tell us about your latest episode, Phil. Uh, we've just done an episode on fake fandom and how New York indie bands are paying agencies to create fake TikTok videos about how much they like their work. And we talk about the behavioral science behind fandom and how encourages people to enjoy the music and all of that good stuff, and do some big things about how this affects the world of politics, business, and brands as well.
Leanne ElliottIt is. It's such, it's such a good show. Of course, you'll hear all the stuff you want to hear about how to grow your business by using behavioural science in your marketing. But there's also just some really interesting episodes that'll be right up your street. Personally, I enjoyed Can Balsamic Vinegar Make Beer Taste Better?
Al ElliottIt can.
Leanne ElliottAnd Are We All Just Status-Seeking Monkeys?
Al ElliottGo and listen to Nudge wherever you get your podcasts.
Leanne ElliottBut come back.
Al ElliottYeah, come back. Definitely come back because Nudge isn't as good as this, so come back. I'll cut that out. Keep that in.
Leanne ElliottWelcome back. Before we get into Hilary's experience with helping GCHQ to manage change, let's learn a bit more about what we get wrong when making changes and whether it's possible to reverse change.
Al ElliottWhat are leaders and managers doing wrong? So, let's start with that, when they are implementing change.
Hilary ScarletYeah, well, I guess the big one for me, I've worked on many change programs over the years, and one of the big ones for me is, I think often leaders, consultants disappear into darkened rooms for weeks or months coming up with strategies and plans, and then emerge and then go out to the organization in broadcast mode saying to employees, Here's the plan, here's the strategy, here's why it's good for you, here's why it's good for customers and stakeholders. Now, please get on with it. And then wonder why most employees dig their heels in and don't want to do it. Again, research shows that giving people that moment to have that moment of insight, that moment of, oh, I get it. I can see why option A is better than B or C, makes a big difference to our brains. But I think a lot of organizations, they go into this broadcast mode, and then wonder why employees dig their heels in and don't want to do it. It's that bit about giving people a bit of a sense of giving, I think, employees that same chance to wrap their heads around why we need to change, what the options are that leaders have had. I think giving people just a bit of that time makes a big difference. And certainly, I've had conversations with organizations about this. Often the pushback will be, no, no, we haven't got time, we haven't got time, we just got to push on and get on with the change. But I think All of us who've worked through change know you've kind of got 2 options. Either you spend a bit of time upfront helping people to understand why we're making these changes, or you spend a heck of a lot of time afterwards kind of mopping up and trying to persuade people to make the changes. So that to me is one of the big— yeah, I guess one of the big mistakes. And I think because there is this need for speed and urgency to get on with the changes, and I get that, but I think that's often why we get a lot of resistance from from employees as well. So I think it's a misguided choice to kind of just push on and go in broadcast mode. And it's interesting how I think, again, we get a little about 4 years and, you know, I think people found the working from home thing quite difficult, but then a lot of people have adapted to that way of life. I mean, I work with so many people that if they've changed their lives, it really suits them in terms of where they live now or pick up the children from school or whatever it might be. And now people are being told to go back into— into the office. And it's a tricky one because in some ways it's taking away people's choice if they're being told to go back in. But at the same time, I do think it's really important people do see each other. That bit about social connection, research does show that very quickly after we stop seeing people quite so frequently, we are less kind about them. We think about them differently. We have kind of these in-groups and out-groups, and very quickly research shows we'll We will be less kind to the people we don't see so frequently. Again, kind of goes back to the brain. The brain thinks it's out on the savanna. So our brains think the people I see day in, day out, they must be my tribe. They've got my back. I trust them. Our brains will start to think people I don't see so frequently, they must be from another tribe. I don't trust them in quite the same way. So we're not quite so forgiving towards them. So I do think There's pros and cons about choice, and I do think also flexibility is really important at work and giving people the ability to work from home if that's what suits them better. So, I think it's got to be about giving people some choice. I think it's got to be about focusing on the outcomes and what you're trying to achieve rather than just having people sitting in the office for the sake of it. But I think it's a tricky one to kind of balance all those different needs, and particularly going back to different generations. There's a law firm I was talking to a while ago. who their partners, who all live in lovely houses with gardens and whatever, were much more reluctant to come back into the city to work. The 25-year-olds who are the kind of just learning, really frustrated, how do I learn if I can't see those partners, those more experienced lawyers? If they're not coming into the workplace, then how do I learn? So, tensions too between the different generations as well. So, I think, again, it's got to be about giving people some choice within that about, again, thinking about, well, what are we trying to achieve overall as an organization? What are the outcomes? So what serves us best? Because for sure, we need some social connection, we need to see people. But also, I know a lot of people can work better at home. They can just focus better, concentrate better, just get more done. So it's finding that balance about what's right for the organization as a whole, but also what's right for individuals and teams. So there's no off-the-shelf answer to that one. I think that's why I think it's tricky. Because each organization's kind of got to work out what's best for them. But say, give employees some choice around that, because certainly some of the organizations I'm working with, there's a lot of unhappiness at the moment where mandates are just coming and saying you must come in so many days a week or whatever. There's quite a lot of unhappiness around that. So I think working out what's best, and again, giving me those moments of insight about, oh, why I need to come in. I think giving people that chance to see, understand why. Rather than just being told you must come in X number of days a week. So I think where it's incredibly helpful is for people who work in HR, people who work in change management, those kind of leaders within the organization. I think it's incredibly useful for them because they are beginning to talk about people and performance and change with more evidence behind them. Here's what we know, what helps the brain focus. Here's what we know gets in the way. I think for the leaders in the organization, just them being equipped with that knowledge. I think just, it might not be the language they use quite so much, but it just, it kind of, I think for good leaders, a lot of what comes out from neuroscience kind of underpins what they're already doing. They get that gut instinct about, I had one leader said, oh, so the fact I take the team out for a cup of coffee on a Monday morning, that's not a frivolous thing to do? No, absolutely not. It's you spending some time with them, just talking to them. Or I talk about laughter quite a lot in my sessions. Laughter is a great de-stressor for the brain. So, having a good old laugh with the team, again, it's not frivolous, it's a really useful thing to do. And again, for some managers, leaders, it's really good to hear that because they do like to bring some laughter, weave some laughter into their work. And now, they've kind of got that backup of, yeah, it's not just a nice thing to do, actually, it's a really constructive thing to do as well. So, I think Yeah, it just gives good leaders, good managers, it will reinforce a lot of what they believe. There'll be some surprises there too, I think, but I think a lot of it will build their confidence in terms of those things. Yeah, have a good old laugh with the team. Yeah, do take them out for coffee. Do spend some time at the beginning of the team's conversation having a chat about the weekend or whatever, just that little bit of social connection rather than going straight into the business. But these little things, again, that can make a difference.
Al ElliottSo, let's talk about getting halfway through implementing some change and thinking, this is not going well. What do we do?
Hilary ScarletWe do put pressure on leaders, ourselves, our politicians, not to make U-turns. We want people to carry on. But sometimes actually, it could be a useful thing to do. So I think weighing up the evidence about, have we actually gone down the wrong track here, is a really useful thing to do, to be able to do, but quite a brave thing to be able to do as well. Because I think we do put pressure on people to be consistent. You said that, you said we're going in that direction. So, I think it's quite a hard thing to do, to reverse that decision, but often can be a useful thing to do. And again, I think it's about bringing people in, engaging them, involving them, so they understand why, if decisions have been changed, why that decision has been made. I can remember one where actually, well, it's one that kind of started off wrong and then got better. Going back to my earlier point about leaders going into darkened rooms and coming up with a plan, but not really spending enough time on engaging other leaders, actually, in this particular case. And it went horribly off track because this change was announced and very quickly, quite a few of the leaders went, I'm not going to do it. And another one would go, no, I'm not going to do it. And the whole thing, you could just see it unraveling. But on that one, you know, it took time, but actually then they did spend much more time then with people helping them to understand why and what was going on. So that's one where I guess I kind of saw, yeah, things going, going wrong, but actually get— getting it back, back on track. I've certainly had that experience. I think most people do kind of carry on and try and make it, make it work, I guess, is what most people, most people do.
Leanne ElliottAs promised, we're going to get all James Bond on your ass here. For anyone outside the UK, there is a an agency called GCHQ, which is the UK's intelligence, security, and cyber agency. They say their mission is to help keep the country safe. In other words, it's similar to NSA in the US. So this agency is crammed full of the top brains in the country, and the analysts spend their days scanning for changes that might signal a terrorist attack or an event that might threaten the UK in some way. Hilary was called in to help the agency implement change better. But how easy is it to convince the most intelligent people in Britain that change is good for them? Let's rejoin the interview where Al predictably has some little boy questions.
Al ElliottLet's talk about the neuroscience behind, um, GCHQ, which I think for anyone who doesn't— in my head, that's who James Bond works for. But is that— have I got that wrong?
Hilary ScarletYeah, there's another different— yes, yeah, but they're similar. They're spies. A different kind.
Al ElliottYeah. I have, I have the sort of the, the little boy question. Did you have to sign the Official Secrets Act?
Hilary ScarletDidn't know. Do you know, there is incredibly interesting— I, I mean, I can't take my laptop in, or I mean, some sessions I do outside GCHQ, I can't take anything in. The really interesting thing about GCHQ is, um, actually when the book came out, um, or when I was writing the second edition of the book, and I said, would you be prepared to be in it? And they said, yeah, we'd be very happy to be in it, but are you happy to be associated with us? Because of working with GCHQ. So that was an interesting title for the book. So they said, are you okay with that? Because people will know that you've worked with GCHQ. So yeah, going in there, it is quite different. Yeah, it's a fantastic building, but yes, you can't go anywhere on your own. You can't take a laptop in. So it does feel very different from how I work with many clients. I've done a few different sessions with them. Initially, I worked with the change team there. Again, just, and it's Quite early days, actually, quite a long time ago I worked with them initially, and I'm just sharing some of the insights around neuroscience and change because they're going through a lot of change. And the GCHQ team have done a great thing in terms of they just kind of listened and learned and read the book and then really started applying it to their work, which is lovely to hear. So when I went back to see them again to talk to them about the book, to interview them about that, it was just great to hear how they'd kind of taken lots of the thinking and then applied it in different ways in the organization. And I think one of the things that some of them found, which I think is true of so many organizations, that just using the language of science with leaders can be incredibly useful, especially when you've got very clever people like you've got at GCHQ, that just bringing the language of science into change management, bringing the language of neuroscience is really useful. Because I think often with organizational change, People think, oh, my opinion's as good as anybody else's. It can be seen perhaps as a bit fluffy about what we do to engage people. But I think bringing science, the language of neuroscience into the organization, not least at GCHQ, enabled those who are managing change to work with leaders and those who sort of pay attention. It's not a matter of opinion. This is what we now know about the brain, what helps it change, what gets in the way. So I think that was really useful. to them. They also got very interested in this whole thing about the reward state, as we mentioned earlier. Our brains tend to perform better when we're in more of a reward state, when good things are happening or we feel good about ourselves. So they just did some interesting little things about just getting people to focus on what they had achieved, some of those small things. One of the things I sometimes do at the beginning of sessions is just get people to talk about 3 good things that have happened in their life today, that very small, big, whatever. And just because research suggests that just thinking about the good things actually activates the reward center in our brains and makes us more likely to see other good stuff around us. And when we're in that reward state, so we tend to be more creative, more curious, more collaborative, because since we can use our energy to reach out to other people rather than use it to protect ourselves in terms of survival mode. So they did little things like that, just to kind of— so yeah, little things like looking at achievements, saying thank you to somebody, just these small things that just— I think that is part of the beauty of neuroscience, that quite small things can make quite a big difference. I think that's part of the beauty of it, that little things, just acknowledging people, just listening to people, as I mentioned earlier, these small things can make a big difference to our brains each day at work.
Al ElliottSo let's talk about this rewards center very briefly here then, How do I know what each of my employees or teams, how do I know what tickles their pickle? How do I know what's going to make them happy?
Hilary ScarletYeah, and that's why I do encourage people to have a conversation with people about, because in that SPACE model, there's autonomy, certainty, fairness, all those pieces that say all 6 of those factors matter to all of us, but we do have different preferences and they can change in different time and circumstances. So, I very much encourage people who come to my session to go and talk to their teams about which is the one that matters to you. Is it purpose? Is it social connection? Is it equity? Which one is it? Because it's a really useful conversation to have with the team. So, it's really interesting to see, are we all quite similar? Are we all driven by purpose perhaps? Or are we all quite different in terms of our preferences? And what does that mean for us as a team? we're all very similar. Say like the IT people I work with are all very driven by autonomy, but not so much by social connection. It's just interesting to see, say, are we similar or are we different? And the useful thing about something like the spaces model, it's a way of acting the reward center in the brain. It's not about money. It's not about throwing more money at you. It's about how I work with you. So if you tell me autonomy really matters to you, I can kind of think, okay, well, I'll let go And let you get on with things. If you tell me certainty is really important to you, then I know it's about information and giving time to ask questions and those kind of things. So, it's a really useful conversation to have, I think, in terms of people's own self-awareness about which one matters to me. As a manager or leader, it's a really useful way to be able to work with the team, understanding what those kind of deep-down motivators are, and giving more of those if that's what will help put people into a more reward state rather than a, a threat state.
Al ElliottWould you find then that you'd implement a different strategy for change for GCHQ as you would be for, say, Ogilvy, where they're much more creative?
Hilary ScarletUm, I, I guess a lot of my work is about the, um, kind of, I guess, the fundamental about the brain that we've all got in common, the things that we do share. I think there are certain fundamentals about the brain that we do all share. And a lot of my work is tapping into that. So that bit about threat-reward, that's true of all our brains, that the rewards might be different in an Ogilvy as opposed to a GCHQ or wherever, but actually those kind of basic things and things like choice, things like certainty, things like thinking it's fair, those factors are important to all of us wherever And I think that's kind of the useful bit about it. It doesn't matter what kind of organization you are, those things matter. People do have different preferences. So I talked about the SPACES model earlier, which stands for self-esteem, purpose, autonomy, certainty, equity, and social connection. And things like, I think a lot of people work in public sector, for example, civil servants, Purpose will be really important, and that's why they went to work there, to give back to society or whatever. So, the purpose of the organization matters. For other people, it might be social connection, and that's why they will choose to go and work at certain organizations. So, I do think the preferences might slightly matter, but all the 6 factors within that SPACE model, they all matter to all of us, but we do have different preferences. So, this kind of fundamental is true, but Could be slightly different in different places. Yeah. So one client, for example, who I work with, they're an IT company, maybe some ways ahead of their time. 20 years ago they set up and they don't have offices. All their consultants either work from home or work at the client's site. And when I do sessions with them, not surprisingly, social connection does not come high up on their list. Autonomy comes high up on their list, but not social connection. And that reflects the kind of work they've chosen to do. They've chosen to be people who work from home or at the client's office. They don't need to go into an office. And so, they've chosen— it's the right choice for them, that autonomy really matters. Leave me alone, don't micromanage me. Social connection matters less to them. So, it is reflected in the culture of the company and the kind of work people have chosen to do. And also, I think in especially work these days, I think so much work now is about collaboration and working together. And you could have great ideas, but if you can't work with other people, it's not going to go very far. So I do go back to that bit about the task-social network, one being on, one being off. I do sometimes talk about it in some of my sessions with them because they're excellent at the task, but maybe the social bit, and say what we practice, what we do, that's what the brain gets better at. So the more we do tasks, the better we get at tasks. The less we do social, the less of that. So no, absolutely. So they do all matter. And I think there's very few jobs where we don't need the help of others. And I think so, and the way society is set up now, I mean, just getting our food or whatever, we rely on other people, the shops, the distributors, the growers, whatever. We're so interconnected that the social brain, I think, is really important. And it is one of the areas I think on the whole, so we do underestimate it, what the importance of it, that I think it is an area that is really worth stressing in organizations, that, that, that sense of belonging, that sense of social connection, that sense of feeling respected by others, it is really important.
Leanne ElliottThat is the incredible Hilary Scarlet. If you want to get a hold of her book, and I recommend you do, it is called Neuroscience for Organizational Change. If you are viewing this on video, you will see how much and how read this book is. It is absolutely one of my favorites. It's so practical. Um, Hilary and her publisher Cogan Page have also been incredibly generous to offer our listeners an exclusive 20% discount on the book if you do purchase it directly through the publisher's website, coganpage.com. Uh, the discount code, I'll read it out, but I'll also leave it in the show notes. All capitals, AHARNOC. Uh, 20% off. It is brilliant, and It's not, it's not as scary as it sounds, is it, Al?
Al ElliottI'm gonna be really honest here and say that I was a bit worried that all of this would go over my head because Leanne's a scientist here. I'm just a guy who somehow managed to build a few websites, a few businesses, um, without really even thinking about this process of change. But Hilary breaks it down beautifully so that everyone can understand it. So if you've got any kind of organization that you want to grow, I genuinely think this is essential reading.
Hilary ScarletYou can also find Hilary in all Well, my company is called Scarlet and Grey, so they can go to the website. I'm on LinkedIn. Probably one of the easiest ways to find me is I'm, I'm on LinkedIn. That's probably one of the easiest ways to, to connect with me.
Leanne ElliottYes, we will leave the link to Hilary's LinkedIn profile and her website in the show notes.
Al ElliottYes, so that's it for today. Remember, all our episodes in July are interview episodes. Then in August, we switch to the more lighthearted Tuesday format where Lee and I chat about the world of work. And bring you the latest news and stories, as well as our now world-famous weekly workplace surgery, where I put your questions to Leanne.
Leanne ElliottAnd also, if we're being honest, it means we can get a little break in August and, and sip margaritas again. Al's insisting on margaritas being sipped by the pool in August. I'm, I'm game.
Al ElliottI'd never had a margarita before until about a month ago.
Leanne ElliottThat's all you can think about now, isn't it?
Al ElliottAll I can think— I wake up in the morning, I think margarita. Anyway, if you have a question you'd like me to put to Leanne about the world of work, then check out the show notes for contact details. If you haven't subscribed, subscribe. There's nothing else to say to you. You're a fool. There's lots more really, really cool stuff coming up towards the end of the year. Oh, we spoke to someone today who I think you're gonna love as well. Anything else to add, my love, before we go?
Leanne ElliottNo, I think that's it.
Hilary ScarletRight.
Al ElliottWe'll see you next week. Bye-bye.
Leanne ElliottThat is the incredibly Hilary Scarlet. If you want—
Al ElliottThat's the incredibly— that is incredible.
Leanne ElliottOh, sorry. That is the incredibly Hilary Scarlet.
Al ElliottYou've done it again.
Leanne ElliottIncredibly. That is the incredible Hilary Scarlet. If you want to get Grumpy, grumpy, grumpy. Give me a G. Give me an R. Al's still angry because I spilt tea on his keyboard this morning.
Al ElliottAnd now every key just types a comma.
Leanne ElliottIt was an accident. I'm really sorry. I did say sorry. I even confessed. I could have tried to keep it quiet, but I even confessed. Oh, flax, flax, flax. Nope.
Al ElliottNo, no, it's— the word begins with S.
Leanne ElliottSchlacks.
Al ElliottSlack sack.
Leanne ElliottOr Slack statuses, state-i. Not sure what the plural is there. Statuses, state-i.
Al ElliottLet's go with state-i. I like it.
Leanne ElliottBut yeah, you can say on Slack.