Feedback or Unpack?

i-love-feedback“Hey, can I give you some feedback on that meeting?”

“Come in my office, I want to give you some feedback.”

“Do you have a minute? I have some feedback that you need to hear.”

Ok, how many of you have already gone into amygdala overdrive just reading that? Feedback is one of those areas of leadership and management that frankly, very few people have really figured out. Except for those highly self-regulated, amazingly emotional intelligent people for whom the idea of feedback is nothing more than a wonderful opportunity to improve (or, conversely, those who just don’t care), it’s mostly, well, tough. Tough to give and tough to take. And while I am by no means arguing that we don’t need it at all, I think it merits pulling apart and reconfiguring.

My first stop is, of course, the neuroscience perspective. Here there are a few things to take into account, the first being the pain of social rejection. We evolved to live co-operatively, in small groups. Our need to belong is as real and pervasive – and as important to our survival – as hunger or thirst. In fact, brain studies have shown that being rejected activates many of the same regions of the brain that are involved in physical pain.

Our limbic system, responsible for scanning for threats (and therefore keeping us alive) is finely tuned to whether we are safely part of the group, whether we are deemed acceptable or deficient, whether we belong. Feedback, even well intentioned, can often trigger a fight or flight response. We think we should be responding rationally, but deeply entrenched safety-driven neural pathways are screaming ‘‘threat!’’ On a basic level, even if it is not true in today’s society, being left out of the group makes us fear for our survival. This puts us in a mode where our higher brain shuts down, making it hard to take in what the other person is saying.

That having been said, it’s also important to note that in terms of any sort of pain, we’re not one-size-fits-all. In terms of physical pain, research shows that people will describe the same stimulus as anywhere from “not at all painful” to “highly painful,” with brain activity corresponding. It’s reasonable to conclude that the pain of social rejection is the same. What feels like harsh criticism to one person may even be too mild to take notice of for another.

BEST ADVICE: Get very very connected when you want (or need) to give someone feedback.When the person you are giving feedback to really knows that he or she is safe, you have a lot more room to say things and have them heard.

This perhaps brings us to the issue of the self-referential nature of our own brains. We understand the world by running it through our own experience, making our own mental map of what is going on. Our feedback to someone often reveals more about ourselves than it does about the other person. For example, when we are asked to rate someone’s behavior, such as in a 360-degree review, we tend to rate it in reference to ourselves. As Marcus Buckingham said in a 2011 article on 360-degree reviews: ‘‘If you rate me high on setting a clear vision for our team, all we learn is that I am clearer on that vision than you are; if you rate me low, we learn that you are clearer than I am’’ (Buckingham, 2011). Buckingham calls this ‘‘bad data,’’ and says that even if you have 20 people’s answers in a 360-degree review, 20 inputs of bad data do not make a reliable report. Bad + bad does not equal good.

In addition, we tend to think that there is a right and wrong way to do things. Each culture, including the culture within an organization, has its own ideals. For example, if the ideal/assumption in your organization is that challenging people and ‘‘calling them on their BS’’ creates the most growth, and you personally believe more in nurturing and focusing on strengths, you will be given ‘‘feedback’’ that you are not measuring up. And you will not be, but only relative to the ideal, which ultimately may or may not be effective.

BEST ADVICE: Provide feedback in terms of the impact you experienced. Marcus Buckingham adds: ‘‘Although you are not a reliable rater of my behavior, you are an extremely reliable rater of your own feelings and emotions.’’ Thus, while you cannot necessarily trust your own judgment of my performance or behavior, you can trust the impact it had on you.

Thus, as we’ve probably all experienced, feedback is tricky business. To be most effective, we have to be highly aware of the other person’s emotional state and manage our own emotions as well. We also need to be cognizant of our biases and beliefs, and focus primarily on the impact of the actions. Even so, the feedback may or may not work to motivate different behavior.

And so, in the BEabove team, we’ve started working with a model we call unpacking. As much as possible, we work together to “unpack” things Unpackingcollaboratively, rather than one person giving feedback to another. Using our model of the Seven Levels of Effectiveness, we look  both “above the line” and “below the line” to see what was present in the situation. To manage our own biases and completely avoid amygdala hijacks, we each own what we did to contribute (positive and negative), and commit to at least one thing we can see for ourselves that we need to do to improve in the future.

This non-blaming dialogue creates a powerful, open space for innovation and emotional intelligence. While we don’t require this in the model, we often end up asking each other about our blind spots and what we might be missing, from a true space of curiosity and desire to improve.

When we decide for ourselves where and how we want to improve, we activate areas of the brain that are not activated when we are told what to do. We stay connected to each other, and curious about what we can do to be more effective members of the team. And we’re motivated to make changes and to grow because we want to, not because someone else — with their own biases, opinions, and emotional reactions — wants us to.

Reference: Buckingham, M. (2011), ‘‘The fatal flaw with 360 surveys’’, Harvard Business Review, October.

22 Things You May Not Know (or Want to Know) About Me

1967MomCharAnnDegePeakWell, isn’t this cool? Last year I was nominated for a “Liebster” award by Katia Bishops, who writes a funny and heartfelt blog about being a mom (among other things). Check out her very real and often hilarious musings at iamthemilk. Anyway, I was charged with posting some random facts about myself, and promptly forgot all about it until now, so thought I would resurrect this in honor of my birthday next week. 

Warning to my neuroscience followers — this is a just for fun blog today. Not much of any significance, but if you’re curious about me, lots of dish. 

11 random facts about me:

1. As creative as I am, my very first beloved stuffed toy was a Steiff bear named, well, Bear. My rationale (and yes, I had one, even at age three) was that this was such a wonderful and perfect bear, no name could possibly be better than Bear. With a capital B.

2. I am a high school drop out. Seriously, I am. Bored, stressed, confused, and completely unable to follow any rules I found counter to my own proclivities, I left in my junior year. A couple of years later, I talked my way into college based on good PSAT scores and struggled with rules again, attending four different schools before finally getting my B.A. in philosophy at age 30. (I think my pre-frontal cortex had finally come on-line at that point and I was able to tick off the graduation requirements without excessive amygdala hijacking.)

3. My deepest unfulfilled desire was to be a philosophy professor, focusing on existentialism and applied philosophy. Oh wait a minute, that’s basically what I do. Never mind.

4. I can’t imagine living without at least one cat. But then you probably knew that.

5. When I was growing up, my family lived in a commune for two years. What can I say? We were Unitarians. I think my dad may have even tried pot once or twice, but he’s a little cagey about that.

6. I don’t really do yoga. It’s one of those things I think is awesomely great for other people, and I respect it totally, but yoga and me? We’re just not close. We’ve worked on our relationship a lot over the years, and finally have agreed that we have irreconcilable differences. Yoga thinks I am an impatient dilatante with little or no discipline. I think Yoga’s boring. We’ve agree to disagree.

7. I am trying not to tell white lies. It’s really really hard. I fail a lot.

8. I did the est training (now the Landmark Forum) when I was barely 18 years old. I knew then that the only possible purpose for my life was to create transformation. I’ve been doing the best I can ever since.

9. I lost my hair when I was 17 due to a condition called alopecia. It’s never grown back, so I have worn different wigs for most of my life, and even gone without for a while. It was not an easy thing to deal with at that age (or any age, really), and it has been a long journey to find the peace, beauty and perfection in this challenge. And I have. I know that this gift shaped me in ways that are deep, and real, and true. I know I would not be the person I am without it, and since I like the person I am very much, I am profoundly grateful. And you know what? It also sucked.

10. For some reason, I like crime dramas, preferably classy British ones (not too much blood, dear). I don’t think this is actually very good for me, but I don’t really care. I can’t, however, stand TV shows or movies with lots of blood, tension or car chases. But a nice corpse in the library? Bring it on.

11. I only care about neuroscience because I see that it helps us understand human transformation. And that, to me, is what it is all about. If I can make it practical, applicable and helpful, then it matters. If you can use what I write or teach or say for yourself or client, then it matters. If all I do is create the impression I’m really smart, then so what? And remember, you’re talking about a high school dropout here.

 11 questions Katia had for me:

1) Which one of your blog posts do you feel reflects you best? I am going to really cop-out here and say whatever the latest is. But I mean it seriously. Whatever I post is my latest thinking, what is most important to me in the moment. I hold myself (and all beings) as highly complex systems, and therefor emergent in nature. What is important is now. And now. And now again.

2) What’s your favorite blog? Wray Hebert on Huff Post. He has a gift for making neuroscience real. And he’s usually kind of funny.

3) 5 things that make you happy? My cats, warm weather, finding really really cool jewelry, hiking in the woods, and a great conversation with my son.

4) If you get to choose your own gift card, where would it be from? Fab.com. Just check them out. Trust me.

5) What is your favourite place in the world? Pacific Northwest, specifically the Washington coast.

6) What’s your star sign? Aquarius, of course.

7) Did you ever overcome a fear? I think I’ve done nothing but overcome fears. Fears of not being good enough, fears of being judged, fears of being too much. What else is there other than overcoming/embracing/tickling and learning to love our fears?

8) Which show should I watch? Why? Anything that makes you laugh, my dear! Because laughter is good for us.

9) When did you last laugh? This morning, teaching a class and telling on myself. 

10) Your 3 favourite books? Mindsight, by Dan Siegel, The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist, and everything by Jane Austen.

11) Which mistake would you make all over again? All of them. Seriously. How the heck else would I have learned?

 

Right Brain-Left Brain — Is It All a Myth?

Well there certainly was some interesting and provocative stuff about the brain in the news in 2013. Last summer, the whole right hemisphere/left hemisphere dominance thing (controversial in neuroscience for quite a while now) was fairly well refuted by researchers at the University of Utah.  In November, a new book came out also dismissing the importance of understanding the two hemispheres in favor of looking at top and bottom brain processing differences (note: it’s a bit simplistic and was not universally well-reviewed). And just before the end of the year, there was new stuff about the difference between male and female brains, once again looking at the hemispheres (and adding fuel to the gender wars).

fingers-in-earsFrankly, it’s all had my head in a bit of a spin, because at BEabove we’ve been digging into the right and left hemisphere in our advanced coaching series, encouraging coaches to use this as one way to understand where their client may be coming from. I’ve also written blog posts here about the different aspects of each hemisphere, spoken about it at conferences, and all in all, held this part of neuroscience as a key thing to understand in both coaching and leadership.

So you can imagine my reaction! Part of me wanted to stick my fingers in my ears and say “la la la I can’t hear you.” But my better angels prevailed, and instead I sat down and tried my best to make sense of it all. Here’s what I’ve come to, and let me say it is an emerging and probably imperfect understanding (just like our overall understanding of the brain itself at this point in humanity’s development):

1) IT’S TRUE — We really should probably  stop calling people “right brained” or “left brained.” According to brain imaging studies, it’s not accurate. At most, it’s a metaphor that is not literally true. As the University of Utah study found, we’re simply not more likely to use one side or the other based on our overall personality. No matter who we are, we use both to do most things. Creative people (who we tend to think of as “right-brained”) use their left side as much as logical people, and logical people (who we tend to think of as “left-brained”) use their right as much as creative people.

2) HOWEVER — There is still much to be learned about who we are by examining and understanding the differences of each hemisphere. Our brains are specialized for a reason — it is what enables us to have the giant brains we have and still walk upright. Our heads just couldn’t get any bigger and still pass through the birth canal, so each hemisphere took on different tasks, and a different way of looking at the world (for more on this, see Come On Over to the Right Side). Which brings us to…..

3) PERHAPS — According to the lead author of the Utah study, “people don’t tend to have a stronger left- or right-side brain network. It seems to be determined more connection to connection.” This means we could be seeing more right or left hemisphere activation around particular issue although not in the entire brain or personality as a whole (see point #1). Thus, understanding the different way each hemisphere sees the world can be very helpful with our journey of self-awareness, as well as understanding our clients and helping them move forward when they are stuck.

4) BECAUSE — Ultimately, it’s not about right or left (or top and bottom, either). It’s about how integrated we can be. For example, research on so-called “resonant” leaders (who tended to put their followers in an open, creative brain state) versus “dissonant” leaders (who tended to create an avoidance state in their followers) found that resonant leaders had more neural firing in both hemispheres of the brain. And long-term meditators develop stronger areas for both positivity (left hemisphere) and compassion (right hemisphere), as well as a measurably thicker corpus callosum, the bridge between the two hemispheres. This bridge helps both connect the two hemispheres as well as allowing each to effectively inhibit the other as needed (see Inhibition and the Brain for more on inhibition and its link to effectiveness). We don’t need or want to be “dominant” in one or the other hemisphere in order to be more effective. We need to become more integrated between our hemispheres, stronger not in one, but in both.

And so, let’s by all means be accurate and up to date, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ok, it’s not accurate to call someone “right brained” or “left Throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-waterbrained.” We can give that up or use it as a metaphor. Fair enough. But understanding the differences between the two hemispheres does, in our opinion, remain interesting and helpful in the process of working to create more integration and ultimately, higher levels of effectiveness. So there. And la la la I can’t hear you if you insist on telling me differently!

Sigh. Not really.

What Does it Take to Change the Brain?

changesI’ve written about neuroplasticity here before a few times, but since it is a fascinating, complex topic (like everything about the brain, right?) I thought I’d share a few more thoughts about some of what we are learning helps or hinders our ability to change.

Neuroplasticity—Keys and Enhancers

Neuroplasticity is, simply put, the capacity of the brain to change throughout life. It can occur on a variety of levels, ranging from changes due to learning or growth, to large-scale changes in response to injury (see Norman Doidge’s entertaining The Brain that Changes Itself for more on the latter). While for most of the 20th century, general consensus among neuroscientists was that brain structure is relatively unchanging after early childhood, current understanding is that many aspects of the brain remain plastic—that is, changeable—even into adulthood.

And so,  we can (and do) change. But what does it take? And why do some people succeed at developing new habits where others fail miserably? Well, extensive research points to certain keys to neuroplasticity, without which it is more difficult (and sometimes impossible) for the brain to make neuroplastic changes. In addition to these keys, there are additional aspects which also assist with or enhance the process. In both cases, the more keys/aspects, the better.

Five Keys to Neuroplasticity*

The following five keys are necessary to the process of making new neural connections. The more one of more of these keys is compromised, the harder it will be for the brain to stay flexible, healthy and cognitively sharp, especially through aging and stress.

1. Exercise

Exercise improves blood flow and increases oxygen levels, which increase neuron growth. (The brain is only 2% of our body mass but it consumes 20% of our oxygen and nutrients.) Exercise also increases the volume of white and grey matter in the brain, by increasing brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF), which is necessary to neuronal growth. A minimum of 30 minutes three times a week is generally recommended, although shorter workouts of more intensity and longer with less are helpful as well.

2. Sleep

A healthy adults needs between 7-9 hours of sleep (Teens need 8.5 – 9.25 hours). During sleep our brain has the chance to integrate learning and also combs through information and decides what is needed and what is not. Neural impulses are literally reversed from our waking state, which serves to both clean out unneeded information and prime the cells for learning and memory in the future.

3. Food

The brain needs Omega-3s and vitamins from foods to create new neural pathways. It’s also critically important to stay away from foods and substances that inhibit neural growth and/or create inflammation. According to new research, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup, alcohol, vegetable oils and many grains may all contribute to non-optimal brain states. Promising research finds coconut oil, berries, B vitamins (and much more) helping to build neural connections in the brain.

4. Novelty

New experiences stimulate neuronal connections. If we don’t know how to do something, the cognitive patterns for it don’t exist in our brains, thus new connections must be made. In order to maintain the benefits, however, these experiences have to increase in challenge in order to create new growth. Additionally, we simply don’t pay attention to things that are boring!

5. Focus and Attention

The close paying of attention (as in study, meditation and focused attention) increases neurotransmitters (such as BDNF, mentioned above in the Exercise section) responsible for creating new neural connections. In addition, many studies have linked meditation practice to differences in cortical thickness or density of gray matter.

Four Enhancers to Neuroplasticity

The following four enhancers are extremely helpful to the process of making new neural connections. The more we have of each, in combination with the five keys, the easier it is to learn, remember, and change.

 1. Relationships

We learn and change best in safe, supportive relationships. Feeling socially connected diminishes stress and can even reduce inflammation, while feeling judged or “less than” others creates fight or flight responses in the brain which inhibit learning. When we feel we are being heard and understood, it increases the connective neural fibers in our brains—fibers that are crucial for bringing together disparate areas for increased cognitive function.

2. Mistakes

A critical part of the learning process is the ability to try, fail, recalibrate and try again. This is literally how the new neural connections we make get either strengthened or pruned. According to Daniel Coyle in The Talent Code, training “at the edge of our abilities” produces results up to 10 times faster than regular practice. That is, making mistakes leads to better skill acquisition. Directly linked to the key of novelty, making mistakes is inherent to increasing the difficulty of the task. As long as we are making mistakes, the task is probably challenging enough.

3. Humor/Play

Humor relaxes and bonds us, and is a wonderful ally in helping to overcome the brain’s strong negativity bias. Laughter has been shown to release oxytocin, which not only makes us feel more bonded and connected and trusting, it’s also a great anti-inflammatory agent. Good humor also often plays upon the unexpected, causing us to think in new ways (novelty). Similarly, being playful puts the brain in an open state for learning. All baby animals and humans learn through play, which allows mistakes to be made and learned from in a safe environment.

4. Multi-Sensory Input

The more multi-sensory neural connections we have associated with a behavior or skill, the stronger the “pathway” becomes by engaging more aspects of the brain. For example, when we remember a vacation to the beach, we may access sounds, smells, sights, even the feeling of sand on our toes. This anchors in the experience more strongly than simply seeing a photo of sand and waves. When we are intentionally working to create positive new neural pathways, bolstering this process by bringing in as many of our senses as possible is a fabulous strategy.

 

*A huge thank-you to Dr. Daniel Siegel for first sharing the Five Keys to Neuroplasticity with me.

Coming soon: a complete bibliography of studies supporting these keys and enhancers. Stay tuned!

 


Some Thoughts About Consciousness and the Brain

brain-manmoon

Hello everyone! I am musing today about consciousness and the  brain. It’s a messy, imperfect attempt to get my head around something, and I’d love to hear your thoughts!

I posted on our sister site, BEabove Leadership, so just click this link and head on over:

http://www.beaboveleadership.com/2013/09/25/some-thoughts-about-consciousness-and-the-brain/

 

 

Empathy for the Non-Empathetic

So here’s the story: I have been renting a lovely house in a suburb of Minneapolis for the past four years. I love it. I am surrounded by trees, it’s on a small river, it’s cute and cozy and tucked away. And I have one of the world’s worst landlords. Every time I need to deal with him, I have to gird my loins for battle. When the washing machine broke, for example, he just said “sorry, I’m done putting money into that house. If you want a new washing machine, buy one.” I had to both cite the lease to him AND threaten to move to get any action at all. And that’s just one example of many times simple things have become unexpected and ridiculous conflicts. It’s exhausting.  At one point, I noticed that, against my principles, I was saying things like “I hate my landlord.”

Now, it’s honestly true that I try not to hate anyone, but this guy–sheesh! So it got me pondering, why is it easy to have empathy and compassion for people when they are sad or afraid, and so hard when they are rigid, inflexible, or angry? Ok, ok, you’re probably thinking why should I have empathy or compassion for him? He’s not honoring his end of the deal! Well, here’s why. I truly believe most people don’t really want to be jerks. They just get caught up in patterns and fears and beliefs that have them act in jerky ways. Therefore, compassion is my goal, always, with everyone.

Which sometimes is easy, and sometimes is hard. And I think this has to do with the brain. You see, there are some things that hang out together. In the right hemisphere, it’s most emotions and our mirror neurons for empathy. The right hemisphere gets activated in sadness, depression, fear, grief, and emotions like that. It’s all about feeling lost, afraid and small. Which we tend to have some degree of compassion for. And we can relate to others’ feelings through our capacity to sense and feel their emotions ourselves through the power of mirror neurons.

The left hemisphere, on the other hand, gets one emotion, anger, no mirror neurons for empathy, and a tendency towards rigidity, superiority and being right. People who are more left-dominant (and yes, I know brain dominance is controversial, but just give me this one for now, ok?),  tend to want to control everything and be emotionally one-note. Everything makes them mad. And along with that, they just aren’t as in touch with their mirror neurons for empathy (since those are in the right hemisphere), so how other people feel — or even that they feel can be mysterious and not particularly personally relevant. In some cases, such as Asperger’s Syndrome and some other forms of autism, it may even be that the mirror neurons for empathy aren’t there at all.

And here is where it potentially gets even more interesting. Take someone who is touch with their right hemisphere mirror neurons for empathy (we’ll call them RH), interacting with someone who is not (we’ll call them LH). RH says or does something that LH doesn’t like, and so LH respond with their one emotion, anger. RH — because of their mirror neurons — feels this anger intensely and it activates RH’s own left hemisphere and makes RH angry too. But even though RH is feeling what LH is feeling, RH has now lost their own compassion and empathy because they’ve gone over to the left hemisphere themselves.

And thus, it is harder to have compassion for anger, control and rigidity than it is for sadness, fear, and a sense of overwhelm, because empathy doesn’t live in the same room as anger (etc.), and when you go there, it stays behind. Thus, even those of us who truly desire to love everyone can get hooked.

So what does it take to have empathy for the non-empathetic? You have to stop, breathe and go back to the other room. Let go of the anger, know it is not actually personal, and find a way to understand this person.

In my case, I had an “aha,” helped by my brother, an IT professional who has seen a lot of LHs in the IT world (my landlord is a software engineer). He has noticed both that the rational, non-emotional, logical world of computers attracts them, and also can reinforce and make left hemisphere tendencies worse, because the positive aspects get rewarded and the negative ones ignored. I realized that this is the profile of my landlord, so of course he is difficult to deal with when the issue is seeing things from my perspective. He doesn’t care how I feel, and it’s not personal. It’s just who he is, and it’s certainly not doing him any favors in life.

And thus, rather than spending my energy on hating him, I found compassion. I’m also moving, because I prefer to deal with people who are more aware, and more connected to both hemispheres of their brain. My new landlord? He turned down renters with cash in hand because he didn’t think they were a good fit for the other tenant, rented to me sight unseen based on his intuition (I was in California teaching) and sent a thank-you note with the copy of my lease.

I love the guy.

The Human Intuition System

color lightI was recently asked to write an article for the International Coach Federation’s magazine, Coaching World. They (bless them) said I could write anything I wanted, so I decided to write about something that has been intriguing me lately — what I call The Human Intuition System. Check out the published article on pages 24-27. There’s some other cool stuff here as well!

August 2013 Coaching World

How I Got Here

I didn’t start my coaching-and-neuroscience journey as a true believer. I am constitutionally designed to be the bratty kid in the back of the classroom skeptical kid-resized-600rolling my eyes and thinking (or saying) “Yeah? Prove it!” I actually started my work intentionally looking for where we were wrong. I was anticipating the moment I could tell the profession we were off track and that hard core, rational science was pointing to an entirely new way of working with people. I thought that would be really cool indeed.

But it never happened.

The more I studied, the more I saw the opposite. Coaching works. Being schooled in the Co-Active model of the Coaches Training Institute (CTI), I focused my research primarily there, and saw again and again evidence from neuroscience of its effectiveness. I shouldn’t have been surprised. As a professional coach for the past twelve years, I had tons of anecdotal evidence that the skills, tools and “being-ness” of this model worked to help people shift, discover purpose and move past limiting beliefs and behaviors.

Why on earth was I so convinced I would find something wrong? Well, my own human arrogance and desire to be right, I guess! And I couldn’t get my head around the idea that something could work so well that wasn’t based in research, that was largely intuited. What I now humbly see is that what we know about the brain, especially as it relates to human growth and development, has been known throughout the ages. We didn’t need neuroscience to show us how to help people move forward. This, we have understood.

Somewhere along the way, I asked CTI if they were interested in my thoughts on the Co-Active model, and they said a big yes. And so I wrote a paper on the Neuroscience of the Co-Active Model. But not because they wanted to prove something. Because I, in my own skeptical (even bratty) way, had found powerful evidence that what we are up to, in a word, works.

So there.

Valugration

applorangeNo, it’s not a real word. Ursula and I made it up last fall when we were sitting in a restaurant in Washington, DC. I said to her, “I feel like I have values that are in conflict with each other. I want them both, but in the case of some values, it’s just too darn challenging to hold them at the same time.”

My example was my value of HUMILITY and my value of BIGNESS. I both want to be part of everything — not special — and take my rightful BIG place in the world. My brain was telling me, “Well that’s nice, but you have to pick one. They negate each other.”

Damn.

I hate that.

As we relaxed and ate our salads, we talked about why this happens, and it occurred to us that it wasn’t the values that were in conflict, per se, it was the two hemispheres of the brain. In the case of my value of humility, my right hemisphere wanted connection and oneness, not to be distinct and different from everyone else (for more on this aspect of the right hemisphere, see Jill Bolte-Taylor’s powerful TED talk). My left hemisphere, on the other hand, wanted the separateness and distinction of bigness. And they both wanted what they wanted.

As we talked more about this, we started to see that when values are difficult to reconcile, typically there is a perceived conflict between the two hemispheres of the brain. We want structure (left) and freedom (right). We want to relax and we want to be productive. We want to play and we want to accomplish things. It’s enough to drive a person mad.

Suddenly, the words of an old Huey Lewis and the News song came to me. He sang, “I want a new drug,” and I thought “Well, I want  new word! I don’t want to choose.” I wanted a word that would capture both hemispheres, one that would help me integrate these desires, these seemingly opposing forces in my life. And thus, the game of Valugration was born. It stands for Values+Integration. And the rules are simple. You take your opposing values and combine them into a brand-new word that can hold both. In this instance, mine was HUMILiGNESS. Humility+Bigness.

Finding the right word take a little finesse. Here are a few pointers from our experience doing this in our classes and presentations:

  • Be sure you are integrating a right hemisphere value and a left hemisphere value. The hemispheres are not typically in conflict within themselves.
  • The new word needs to inspire you and not have a connotation that takes you away from the experience.
  • Because the right hemisphere holds the whole, while the left is focused on parts, we find that the brain tends to like the right hemisphere word to come first, but this isn’t a hard and fast rule.
  • It is best if it really is a brand new word, one that you don’t already know. This will make you think about it newly, see it with fresh eyes, and approach living into it with curiosity.
  • Write it down so you don’t forget it.

That’s it — pretty simple, actually. Oh, but I almost forgot the second part of the game. The second part is to try it on and ultimately live your new word. You play that part of the game the rest of your life.

To play VALUGRATION with your BEabove Leadership Valugration experts, come and visit us in the exhibitor area of the Midwest ICF conference June 20-22 in Minneapolis. 

To learn practical, hands-on neuroscience for coaches, come experience our advanced coaching series! Places are still available in our August 7-11 retreat in Northern California