Micromanagement, change, stress, conflicts, SCARF model
We wonder why team working is not working, what is really behind the failures of teams.
The scenario;
Jane is working for a large organisation, she likes the job she is doing, but her boss is a bit of a micromanager. The department is going through restructuring and no one knows how the new norm will look like. She is working extra hard to keep the department afloat, but some of her peers are not putting as much effort into the work as she is. On top of it, Jane is receiving some feedback from one of her peers about her performance. She is often left out from the 10 o’clock coffee chats, her other peers are ‘forgetting’ to invite her for social walks.
Soon enough, Jane is starting to feel overwhelmed; her mental health is deteriorating and her work output is not the same as before. The relationships in her team are starting to become difficult, the arguments and disagreements are almost daily. As the deadlines are too tight and people are not pulling their weight, Jane decides to cut corners in her work to save time, but this results in a health and safety incident.
Of course, the above scenario is overly simplistic, with areas are not addressed in the below article, but to demonstrate some elements of effective work, it is able to highlight some important aspects.
What are the reasons behind the above issue? Let’s see in details with the aid of David Rock and his SCARF model (2008).
I read an interesting article from David Rock, ‘Managing with the brain in mind’, you will find details of this below. The article is about how the threat response is triggered in the workplace, how the threat response is affecting individuals’ effectiveness. The most interesting element of the article was about how social and physical pain have similar brain responses in individuals, especially when individuals feel rejected which can be in work or outside of work.
Rock (2008) developed his model called SCARF where he identified 5 elements that are essential for working with others effectively.
The elements of the model are;
Status – our relative importance to others. High status correlates with human longevity and health, our brains are hardwired for this, we are programmed for this otherwise we wouldn’t survive, in a biological encoded sense.
Certainty – our ability to predict the future. Individuals need certainty in their lives. Mild uncertainty can be a positive thing, it can encourage problem-solving, can be helpful in energising people, also can create lots of creativity. Too much uncertainty however can trigger threat response in individuals, which will result in decreased memory capacity, performance and create disengagement due to the increased neural energy individuals need to invest in the situations. (Rock, 2009)
Autonomy – the perception of reduced autonomy (micromanagement) can trigger a threat response. If individuals don’t have the choice to make decisions or have to follow rigid instructions, their reduced autonomy will trigger a threat response.
Relatedness – how safe we feel with others. As Patrick Lencioni identified in his book, the 5 dysfunctions of a team, the building block of a team is trust. Rock expands this with empathy as essential elements for healthy relationships. If people feel they belong to a social group (team), their ability to feel trust and empathy will trigger a more comfortable feeling in the brain.
Fairness – how fair we perceive the exchanges between people. Perception of unfairness is a dangerous one as this can undermine trust and create hospitality between individuals. With fair exchange, fair workload distribution, individuals will feel more satisfied with work.
If we try to have a look at what is actually going on with poor Jane, we can see clearly that she is affected in almost all areas of the SCARF model. She doesn’t have the autonomy to plan her work tasks, her manager is micromanaging her. Due to the restructuring in the department, the level of uncertainly is too great, which will push Jane into a panic mode, which might result in inappropriate decisions. The feedback element of the scenario is an interesting one. Due to the feedback from the peer who is not working hard, which is not fair and of course this is Jane’s perception and assumption, she can become defensive about this feedback as her status is threatened, as Rock detail it in his article, Jane might feel that the peer thinks and behaves as superior to her. As she is cut off from the social interactions from the rest of the team, again threat response is activated, this social rejection causes similar activities in her brain as physical pain.
Management top tips;
Status – Raising one’s status is not just through promotion, praise your staff when they deserve it.
Certainty – Share business plans, reasons for change, communicate.
Autonomy – Give individuals the opportunity to make choices and decisions, for example, to organise their workload
Relatedness – Introduce a mentoring system in your team and perhaps think about reverse mentoring as well. Provide opportunities for social interactions, mold the strangers into friends. This can also be done in the virtual environment, have regular coffee breaks once a week using different video calling systems, or have a Friday after work virtual drink.
Fairness – Fair work distribution is a good starting point, but you might need to think about other elements. Once you have spoken with your staff, you will see the bigger picture with different solutions
Reference:
Rock, D. (2009) Managing with the brain in mind, Strategy and Business, issue 56, Autumn
Photo by Brigitte Tohm from Pexels and Ahmad Syahrir
Kommentare