Author Archive for Bob Bailly

Tribal marketing

yankee fans 300x199 Tribal marketingBy Bob Bailly

My recent posts have looked at how our evolutionary past has shaped our modern business behaviour. Recently I looked at the desire to live and work in a tribal setting –  a feeling so powerful that many of our business practices are based upon a tribe’s primitive functioning. I also looked at the notion that tribes demand strong leaders, and these leaders must inspire their followers (through fear, heredity or action). Followers must also understand and accept their roles for the tribe to be successful.

I pointed out that there were other conditions necessary for us to want to belong. Here are three I noted, with some comments about implications for modern business.

  • Tribes have a strong culture and are prone to develop and use cultural symbols.
  • Tribes develop stories, sometimes magical and sometimes mythical, that define their values.
  • Tribes have enemies, and the stronger the enemy the stronger the loyalty to the tribe.

Cultures, stories, enemies and brands

I’ve mentioned before that one of the current thinkers arguing for a tribal interpretation of modern business is Seth Godin, who has written and lectured extensively about the similarities between tribes and associations, teams, companies, brands etc. His book, “From Monologue to Dialogue – The Purple Cow,” looks extensively at how modern tribes share common values, and these are expressed by their costumes, symbols, mascots, uniforms and even the way they describe themselves.

When you think of a baseball or football team such as the New York Yankees or the Dallas Cowboys, or consider a corporate icon such as Mickey Mouse or the red maple leaf that adorns a Canadian flag, you can see without too much trouble how these symbols anchor and exploit the core values of their tribe members – owners, customers and citizens alike.

For Yankees baseball fans, their symbol is the fabled intertwined NY logo. They value winners. And they do win. They have won 27 world championships and the stories of the team and its players fill untold volumes of books. Their heros are revered in a memorial to themselves ­called “Monument Park” visible at field level. They have a stadium named after themselves. (By naming it Yankee Stadium, the team is perhaps one of the only modern major sport franchises that is in effect its own corporate sponsor.) Their symbols include the pinstripe jerseys they wear with no names on them. As part of their culture, they play Frank Sinatra’s version of New York, New York following every home game. Fans feel obliged to jeer at their arch enemies – Boston Red Sox fans – at any opportunity with a “Red Sox Suck!” taunt.  And their legions of fans are distributed world wide – sometimes outnumbering hometown followers when the Yankees are on the road.

No different than the banners of ancient kingdoms or the war paint of aboriginal warriors, we use symbols to indicate our tribal loyalty. Consider the tattoos and colours of a biker gang, the cheese heads worn by Green Bay Packers fans, or the logos on our shoes and shirts – tribes are naturally forming and they love to create and use artifacts, devices and symbols to represent who they are and what they stand for. Tribal warpaint or an Apple with a bite out it – same thing really. Brands in effect are the modern manifestation of our desire to represent our tribal values through symbols, stories and culture.

A key factor in looking at tribes is that they know what they do. Their culture is defined by their values and they will display symbols to demonstrate that they belong. Some obvious tribes of interest include churches, businesses, community associations, sports teams and political parties. In a sense, any special interest can also be considered a tribe.

Hells Angels a tribe? Hell yes. Terrorist cells? Of course they are, just badly aimed for the rest of us. It’s like the distinction between a cult and a religion. (A cynic once said that a cult is a religion without any power.) They are indeed one of the same – tribes are an association of like minds.

Implications for modern times

So what should we make of these modern tribes? In a paper published in 2002, Bernard and Veronique Cova put together an argument for considering a tribal model when looking at specific business practices such as marketing. “People are ‘re-rooting” because of progress,” the Covas write. “But our observations indicate they are seeking shared emotions, and, to use an anthropological term, are exhibiting classic values associated with tribalism – local sense of identification, religiosity, and collective behaviour that is replacing kinship, lineage and other blood-related attributes. The link is around non-rational and traditionally archaic elements – loyalty, kinship, emotion and passion.”

However, the Covas point out postmodern tribes differ from archaic tribes (such as aboriginal groups) because:

  • They are ephemeral and non totalizing groupings. Archaic tribes were permanent and totalizing;
  • A person can belong to several postmodern tribes. In an archaic tribe a person could only belong to one tribe; and
  • The boundaries of a postmodern tribe are conceptual. They were physical in archaic tribes.

The members of postmodern tribes are related by shared feelings and (re)appropriated signs. Members of archaic tribes were related by kinship and dialect. But these connections are no less powerful than allegiances of old; modern tribes, linked by modern technology, display their powers over us daily.

And as much as any modern-day tribe, we can learn a lot from the Yankees and their legions of fans about how to nurture the power of symbols, stories, values, and enemies to foster untold loyalty.

To be successful, it’s necessary to reinterpret our thinking to include tribal influences in our marketing and business efforts.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More tribal leaders required


Barbecueing Quest for Fire1 271x300 More tribal leaders required
By Bob Bailly

Has evolution prepared humans to live in the world we have created? Was Desmond Morris correct when he pointed out that, “Man’s biological equipment is not strong enough to cope with the unbiological environment it has created?” Has our transition from hunter/gatherer living in a cave to cosmopolitan businessperson living in a luxury condo been as smooth as we’d like to think?

In my last post, I postulated that humans prefer to live and work in a tribal setting and promised to explore the nuance of this from a modern business perspective. Today’s focus will be on the role of leadership.

Leaders and leadership

So much has been written about leadership from a business perspective that there is a risk of being trite here. Still, I believe modern writing tends to nibble around the edges of what I believe are some core attributes of business leadership. We’ve been trained to analyze a leader’s management style, core competency and desirable traits by looking at human behaviour from a sometimes abstract and at times esoteric point of view based on the business sciences (economics, marketing, management, finance).

However, I am more inclined to look at leadership from a behavioural sciences perspective by considering what anthropologists, sociologists and neurobiologists bring to the debate. What can a more primitive, so to speak, look at leadership teach us?

Tribal leadership

A tribe could be defined as any group of people, large or small, who are connected to one another, a leader and an idea. For millions of years, humans have been seeking out tribes, be they religious, ethnic, economic, political, or even social (think of Facebook). It’s our nature.

Leadership can be defined as the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal. Put even more simply, a leader is the inspiration for, and director of, the action. He or she is the person in the group who possesses the combination of personality and skills that convinces others to want to follow his or her direction.

In business today, however, leadership is often welded to performance and often to an artificial hierarchy. Those who are viewed as effective leaders are those who increase their company’s bottom lines. But all too often, this performance overlooks the organization’s – or the tribe’s – role in shaping the end result.

In our hominid past around three million years ago, our early human ancestors and their tribes were nomadic hunter-gatherers. These groups were likely small – not much more than family or clan living and moving together. They certainly must have been reliant on each other for mutual aid, and to share and combine resources. Their growing brains were starting to be able to manipulate their environment for their mutual benefit. Although competition for leadership may have occurred, current thinking on the subject suggests that despotic behaviour was curtailed because these small groups, likely measured in dozens rather than hundreds, were for the most part egalitarian in nature. Fair, neutral and trustworthy leadership was expected, and likely demanded by tribal members.

How leaders arose

Living in groups has always required some form of social coordination, from finding and distributing necessary resources, making peace, making group decisions and dealing with enemies. Democracy was probably natural. Leaders were chosen or simply acknowledged by the group as leaders because they possessed superior skills and physical attributes – larger, quicker, smarter or more aggressive individuals who could be counted on to do what was best for the group’s survival. Dominant behaviour was probably accepted as long as the tribe was benefiting. Anthropological evidence suggests that this tribal model was so successful that pre-humans were able to survive for several million years. If under threat, aggressive leaders were likely chosen by the tribe, but being a follower had no built in disadvantage – living conditions for all members of the group were very similar, and other than prestige, leaders were living the same life as everyone else. Outrageous behaviour was discouraged or unacceptable.

Leaders arose because they had the implicit respect and acceptance from the tribe. Anjana Ahuja and Mark van Vugt suggest that this adaptive behaviour is also reflected in other species, from fish to birds to chimpanzees, because it gives a survival advantage. Their studies of more modern hunter-gatherer societies also show that gifted individuals are picked in a “bottom-up, not top-down, way. Leadership is fluid rather than fixed, and assigned by peers to whoever is recognized as being adept in a specific domain, from herbalism to hunting” (see Naturally Selected: The Evolutionary Science of Leadership).

But about 7,000 years ago things began to change for most of mankind. Small, widely dispersed groups of wandering hunter/gatherers began to settle down in some key locations in the world as they achieved success in raising crops and domesticating animals. The shift had begun from smaller, family-based tribes where everyone knew everyone else, to impersonal villages, towns and cities where strangers began to outnumber tribe members.

With the growth of permanent settlements came the notion of private property and the roles of leaders changed forever. Chieftains, kings and lords arose and imposed customs, rules and regulations to reinforce their control of the property that “they owned.” The need to protect territory is probably hardwired into humans and is certainly observed in other primate species. But the effect of this social construct at that time meant that crowds became more dense, elites became more elite, and relationships became more impersonal. This in turn also fostered specialization of resources to include military and police to provide security for that property. Today, this so-called need for security eats away incredible and vast resources – worldwide expenditures for arms and weapons, for police and armies far outweigh capital invested in education or health, but I digress.

Many observers agree, this shift from a personal (everyone is known in the tribe) to an impersonal (city-based) society was and is causing the human animal its greatest agonies. As a species, we are not biologically equipped to cope with a mass of strangers masquerading as members of our tribe.

What can we do?

Today, we can still observe the ancient reverence we have for the tribal roles that produced leaders who were great hunters, warriors, mystics, healers and artisans. Only in our time, we have institutionalized hunters and warriors with designations such as politicians, bureaucrats, business leaders, judges, military and police. Mystics have become institutionalized under many guises of clergy. Healers have become our doctors, teachers, and social service professionals. Our artisans include not only artists, but professional athletes and entertainers of all stripes.

But many leaders with these designations today unfortunately expect many more perks and power than our ancient ancestors did. And not only that, they expect to be recognized with compensation for their prowess and effort that far outstrips their other tribe members.

So today’s reality is that despite the merits of the many professionals involved in these practices, we are often locked into some bad practices. Consider grossly overcompensated CEOs and management groups. Consider managers chosen by their boss rather than by their peers. Consider politicians who reward loyalty over good sense … you get the picture.

I believe that what we’re missing is the more natural leadership that arises from the bottom up, but I actually believe we are seeing some signs of its revival.

Someone once noted that the Beatles did not invent teenagers, they merely decided to lead them. Revolutions start when a “someone” looks at the status quo, decides they don’t like it, and then finds a disaffected group to join.

The Internet has eliminated the barriers of geography, cost, and time to find and join a group. Blogs and social networking sites are helping existing tribes get bigger. But more importantly, they’re enabling countless new tribes to be born – groups of 10, or 10,000, or 10 million who care about their favourite actress, or political candidate, or new ways to fight global warming or a pipeline. The Occupy Wall Street protests are a great example of this – organized by and through the Internet but performed on the ground using grassroots democracy. Unfortunately for them, no charismatic leaders have yet to appear to provide a face and direction for this tribal frustration.

And so the key question: Who should lead us?

The Web can do amazing things, but it can’t provide leadership. That still has to come from individuals, people probably just like you who have a passion about something. The explosion in tribes means that anyone who wants to make a difference now has the tools at their fingertips.

If you think leadership is for other people, think again. The tribe will judge your suitability.

And one final thought to consider, leaders don’t need everyone, but they must recognize they can’t do it by themselves. I think it was Seth Godin who once said: “Jesus needed his disciples as much as his disciples needed him.”

So my advice to you is find your tribe, figure out your role and choose your leader wisely.

Image: The BBQ Smoker Site

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tribes in a techno world

This is the latest contribution to this blog by Associate Bob Bailly, a Calgary-based neuro-marketing practitioner.

tribe syndication 300x220 Tribes in a techno worldBy Bob Bailly

My recent posts have looked at what we can learn about our business behaviour from a neuroscientific point of view. We’ve looked at how our brains have evolved and how this affects the way we behave and act. Neuroscience teaches us that the cerebral brain – the part of our brain that thinks and that differentiates humans from all other species – is a relatively recent evolutionary development, and that we are largely influenced by the living vestiges of more primitive brains within us. The decision-making part of our brain is reptilian, which allows for some useful predictive modeling.

My work, however, is not just about brain science. I believe that modern business has much to learn from all of the evolutionary sciences. Despite the drive to incorporate more and more new technology into our daily lives, we are creatures of our evolutionary past in in other ways.

So what can we learn from these other evolutionary sciences – including anthropology, sociology and biology – and fed by the clues gleaned from geology, archaeology and history? From these scientific pursuits I believe that it’s become exceedingly clear that despite a few thousand years of civilization and a few decades of technological breakthroughs, for most of human existence we have been finding, hunting and gathering the daily essentials we need to survive. This pre-modern existence has developed what I believe is a definite biological bias to certain behaviours.

Tribal thoughts

The most important of these, from a business perspective, is that humans still prefer to live as members of tribes.

I first began writing about this following the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver. There is been nothing as nakedly tribal as the emotional roller coaster these games garnered across Canada. About 26.5 million Canadians watched at least part of the final hockey game between the U.S. and Canada. That’s 80 percent of the population of roughly 33.7 million. Two days after the games, The Globe and Mail published a 24-page supplement simply entitled “Heroes” celebrating the “206 athletes (who) wore the Maple Leaf and made us proud for 17 days.”

As a Canadian, I shared in this emotional cocktail which engulfed our nation. However, the blinding insight into the obvious is that Canadians acted no differently than any other nation when one of their own celebrates a victory. Witness the spectacle of any die-hard fan with painted face, banner waving, screaming with the joy and the agony of every action on the field of play and you can immediately understand the intensity of the feeling and the satisfaction we get from not only being a fan, but being part of something so much bigger than ourselves.

Within all of us, whether athlete or not, competition triggers our fight or flight reflex. Winning a “fight” such as an Olympic event, a World Cup of Soccer game, or a Major League World Series causes an adrenal-fueled celebration of victory that is so satisfying, so primal and so community focused that it’s impossible to deny that humans are indeed tribal animals, and that you don’t need to be one of the participants to enjoy this rush.

It’s probably the safety of numbers that has caused our brains to be adroitly wired to live peacefully in small groups. We do act on these tribal urges every day in our modern world. Politicians exploit it, sports franchises exist because of it, and marketing gurus like Seth Godin have even written books about it.

There are several key considerations to our tribal desires that are universally observed across all cultures around the world. These will be summarized briefly here, but over the course of the next several posts I’ll examine each in turn in more detail to see what we can learn from our evolutionary predilections that might have a bearing on our organizations or ourselves.

So what are the conditions necessary for us to want to belong?

  • Tribes demand strong leaders, and these leaders must inspire their followers (through fear, heredity or action). Followers must also understand and accept their roles.
  • Tribes have a strong culture and are prone to develop and use cultural symbols.
  • Tribes develop stories, sometimes magical and sometimes mythical, that define their values.
  • Tribes utilize hierarchies of power and place.
  • Tribes have enemies, and the stronger the enemy the stronger the loyalty to the tribe.
  • Tribes, like any animal species, must adapt to new environmental realities or conditions or they will fragment, wither or die.
  • Tribes are only as strong as the emotional connection they have between members. It has been proven time and again throughout history that a small number of people can affect a large number of people with emotional commitment.

In a nutshell, a tribe is any group of people, large or small, who are connected to one another by a common vision about who they are, are led by a leader or leaders, and who share stories, symbols and icons that identify them as members of that tribe. A tribe is held together by the emotional attachments members have to each other and these tribal ideals.

We can and do belong to many tribes at the same time – consider being a Canadian, Rotarian, Maple Leafs fan, or member of a church. Consider the company you work for, the team you play on, or the brands you choose. Many of today’s modern tribes are the social, professional, class, academic, or sports groups we join or enjoy. We display our membership by the clothes we wear, the words we use and the traditions we build. Regardless of whether our tribal membership is weak or strong, we live our lives surrounded by the trappings of our tribes and according to their rules.

Future posts will look at the social unrest of the Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement on Wall Street, as well as the adoration of Steve Jobs and the success of Apple Computers. We’ll be looking for the tribal clues that technology-focused companies can incorporate into their business dealings. We will attempt to identify strategies to create social groups or communities that are centered round a product or service. In short, we’ll be looking at tribal behaviour so that you can improve your leadership, management, product development, organizational structure, branding, marketing, sales, and communications.

That’s not too much to ask, is it?

Image: JonAlfredson.com

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is your brain … this is your brain on technology: Part II

This is the next contribution to this blog by Associate Bob Bailly, a Calgary-based neuro-marketing practitioner.

144 digital native2 300x167 This is your brain … this is your brain on technology: Part IIBy Bob Bailly

In my last post we looked at research that suggests there may be a darker side to our growing reliance on technology. The brain development of our “digital natives” may even be negatively affected by continued exposure and use of video and computer applications. But is this truly the case?

Barbara Arrowsmith Young struggled with dyslexia while growing up and had difficulties with problem solving and visual and auditory memory. Finding connections between things, such as the relationship between the big hand and the little hand on a clock, was impossible. However, she also had areas of brilliance. Tests done later in life proved that her auditory and visual memory was in the 99th percentile and her frontal lobes were exceptionally developed, giving her a driven, dogged quality. She learned enough tricks to compensate for her difficulties and went on to study psychology in university.

It was there that she came across the brain maps created early in the 20th century by Alexander Luria from his work with soldiers who had suffered head wounds. Using these maps, she identified a number of unique learning dysfunctions and the brain regions that control them, and developed a theory that a person can transform weak areas of the brain through repetitive and targeted cognitive exercises – no different than an athlete exercising specific muscles to improve their physical performance. While she was looking for explanations for her own behaviour, her work resulted in the creation of the Arrowsmith School, a small Toronto private school that has been treating kids with learning disabilities for three decades.

Today, this notion of brain plasticity – of which she is pioneer – is established in neuroscience. With her body of experience and documented success, schools throughout Canada and the U.S. have adopted her methods. A report commissioned in 2003 by Toronto’s Catholic District School Board found that Arrowsmith students’ rate of learning on specific tasks such as math and reading comprehension increased by 1.5 to three times using her techniques.

Strengthening learning capacities or promoting Attention Deficit Disorder?

But Young has noticed a new development. More and more, she is seeing young people who are struggling with thinking, problem solving and general task completion. In Part I, we looked at research that suggests the brains of “digital natives” are being rewired by their use of technology, and not always for good. What Young is seeing appears to correspond with the growing use of technology and social media among young people.

“It looks like attention deficit order,” she says. “The person has a job or a task and they start doing it but they can’t stay oriented to it. They get distracted and they can’t get reoriented. When I started using the programs, I really didn’t see a lot of this. I would say now, 50 percent of students walking through the door have difficulty in that area.”

The kids also experienced trouble with non-verbal thinking skills, for instance having difficulty reading facial expressions and body language – skills essential for social situations of any kind.

As these skills are both related to areas of the prefrontal cortex, when a person has a deficit there, it’s hard to participate in the world, because this is the area of the brain where Young says our “mental initiative” comes from – our drive to go out and explore the world.

While her students face more extreme problems than the average teenager, her observations provide some additional validity to Gary Small’s research (see Part I).

“Perhaps not since early man first discovered how to use a tool has the human brain been affected so quickly and so dramatically,” he writes in iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Human Mind. And this unprecedented rate of change is likely creating what he calls a “brain gap” between young and old that is occurring over a single generation.

Is rewiring our brains good or bad?

If too much technology is indeed getting in the way of “normal” brain development, is this necessarily a bad thing?

In Growing Up Digital, How the Net Generation is Changing Your World, author Don Tapscott calculates that based upon current usage of digital and video sensory information (estimated to be 8.5 hours per day for young people), an average teenager will have spent more than 20,000 hours on the Web and over 10,000 hours playing video games, which he believes will rewire their brains for speed and multi-tasking, developing new ways of finding, synthesizing and communicating information and providing them with “a giant opportunity.” Tapscott writes, this is “an opportunity to fulfill their intellectual potential and be the smartest generation ever.”

A final thought

I’m not sure of the source, but the gist of the argument goes like this: Is it the computer giving us Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or is it more about speed and multiple lines of access? Maybe it looks like ADD because there is so much more to do to stay on top of the game.

Are we gaining or losing? If we don’t have to memorize a phone number or read a book for the information we are seeking, aren’t we freeing the brain up for other more important tasks? This is the question Dr. Michael Merzenich, another international expert in brain plasticity, pondered as he considered someone spending lots of time doing online activities – what is he/she not doing? “What are the cognitive tasks we’re ignoring?” he asks, “And what are the consequences of not doing these things?”

Even though we may be able to find all our answers on the Internet, Merzenich says, “I still have to believe that the invention, the creativity, these fabulous human assets, are absolutely dependent upon having rich resources and content in our very own brains.”

The alternative would be to argue that because we have machines that can do the work, why would we bother? “Is this what we want?” he asks. “Is our goal to create a brainless society?” Are we indeed just a click away from anything that we need, with no further thought required?

For good or bad, our digital world is certainly impacting how we use our brains, which in turn impacts how they are wired. How we source and process information, how we think and how we engage with one another will define, and continue to be defined by, how we use the connective technology available to us. It’s a cautionary tale on many levels for all of us in the business of bringing technology to market and effectively marketing that technology to engage with prospective customers.

Image: Monday Note

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is your brain … this is your brain on technology: Part I

This is the next contribution to this blog by Associate Bob Bailly, a Calgary-based neuro-marketing practitioner.

1193745308oiTEkH 257x300 This is your brain … this is your brain on technology: Part IBy Bob Bailly

Do you ever wonder, as I often do, if there is a dark side to modern video and digital technology? If we are indeed creatures of our animal evolution, then is our technology becoming harmful to our bodies, or, more particularly, our brains? If you work for a technology-driven company, are there unintended psychological consequences arising from what you do?

UCLA-based neuroscientist Gary Small and his author wife Gigi Vorgan think so. They say exposure to technology is actually changing the human brain, and these changes are especially pronounced in young people who have grown up with computers – what they refer to as “Digital Natives.” And their research has some far reaching implications for parents, educators and young people themselves as new media technologies become more and more pervasive.

Using functional MRI scanning to monitor brain activity of subjects, two groups of subjects – those with lots of experience using the Internet, and those who had little to no experience with computers – were asked to perform a simple Google search.

Those experienced with using computers demonstrated activity in the front-left part of the brain called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Those with no experience showed no activity in that region at all.

Subsequently, Small asked both groups to practice Google searching for one hour a day for five days, and when they came back, he scanned them again. This time, both groups showed activity in the front left part of their brains. According to Small, this shows that after only “five hours on the Internet, the naïve subjects had already rewired their brains.”

What is distressing, however, is that Small and Vorgan believe that for people who use computers all day, every day, the brain changes may be even more extensive. While some neural connections are being added and others are growing stronger, “the neural circuits that control the more traditional learning methods are neglected and gradually diminished.” They go on to speculate that “the pathways for human interaction and communication weaken as customary one-on-one skills atrophy.”

But Jeffery Helm, a Vancouver-based neuroscientist, says it’s just a matter of adaptation. Our brain wiring is adapting to our technology. Every change in how we interact is a hard-wired change in the brain.”

Are our brains plastic?

Other thinkers on the subject also don’t see this a very big deal. For instance, Marc Prensky, a New York-based designer of learning games and author of Digital Game-Based Learning, in a 2001 article entitled “Do They Really Think Differently,” describes how the phenomena of neuroplasticity produces a brain that is constantly reorganizing itself throughout our lives, regardless of whether we work with computers or not.

“Stimulation of various kinds actually changes brain structure and affects the way people think, and these transformations go on throughout life. The brain constantly reorganizes itself all of our child and adult lives, a phenomenon technically known as neurolasticity,” he wrote.

Judy Illes, a neuroethicist at UBC in Vancouver agrees.

“Why would significant exposure to technology be different than anything else in our environment?” she said. “Cells in the brain connect in different ways in response to the way the brain reacts to the environment … What’s new, however, is in kids who play computer games repetitively. There we see changes in cortical and subcortical structures – structures like relay systems, motor outputs, etc.”

Oh those video games

Citing studies from Tokyo’s Nihon University, Small and Vogan say their studies have shown video game play actually shuts down activity in the brain’s frontal lobe both during game play and afterward – in fact, impairing development in the areas of the brain involved in abstract thinking and planning. This is of particular significance because it is occurring in young people whose brains haven’t yet finished maturing.

Another one of the great paradoxes of our modern life is that, while people have more information available to them than ever before, we’ve never known less. In The Dumbest Generation, English professor Mark Bauerlein at Emory University says that compared to previous generations, today’s students compare poorly.

“They don’t know any more history or civics, economics or science, literature or current events,” he said. “They read less on their own, both books and newspapers, and you would have to canvas a lot of college English instructors and employers before you found one who said that they compose better paragraphs.”

In 2004, as a director with the National Endowment of the Arts, Bauerlein was involved in a report that found that leisure reading in the U.S. had dropped significantly over a 20-year period, with the biggest drop noted among young people ages 18 to 24. In 2002, only 43 percent voluntarily read anything outside of school, down from 60 percent in 1982.

He believes that “acquiring information means you store it in your mind. You think it through and you remember it. That’s a slow reading pattern, a slow analysis process.”

It’s also very different than the shallow and diffuse process involved in mental multi-tasking we perform daily on our computers, portable phones, TVs and the like. Small calls this “continuous partial attention.” Since we are always on the alert for the next bit of exciting news or information, we no longer take the time to reflect and or make thoughtful decisions.

The death of empathy

Here’s another perspective: Even Facebook may be changing how we behave.

An ongoing study is being carried out by researchers from the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, and the findings are startling.

To date, the study has examined personality tests from 13,737 American college students taken over 30 years and compared their test scores on the Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index. This test looks at empathic concern, an emotional response to the distress of others, and “perspective-taking,” or the ability to imagine another person’s perspective.

The researchers found a 48-percent decrease in empathic concerns and a 34-percent decrease in perspective-taking between tests taken in 1979 and 2009. They have concluded that college kids today show little to no empathy to others, they do not show emotions as much and they do not care for others as much. The study also noted that the most sizeable drop in empathy came after 2000 as social networks such as Facebook and Myspace began to flourish – two technologically driven developments that focus on “me” rather than the world at large.

As we engage customers more and more through online offerings, as communication moves more towards digital encounters, or as teachers and students come to grips with teaching and learning in the digital age, this is certainly food for thought. Much more research must be done to understand how technology is impacting our cognitive abilities and our emotional and social behaviour. In my next posting, we’ll further examine how our brains adapt and the role technology can play, for good or ill, in brain development.

Image: dreamstime

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Email and little white lies

This is the next contribution to this blog by Associate Bob Bailly, a Calgary-based neuro-marketing practitioner.

fingers crossed 300x200 Email and little white liesBy Bob Bailly

There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true.

– Winston Churchill

Lying increases the creative faculties, expands the ego, and lessens the frictions of social contacts

Clare Luce Booth

While not an exclusively human characteristic, the ability to lie is certainly a characteristic of humans. Philosophers such as Augustine, Aquinas and Kant condemned the use of misinformation and deception inherent in human communication, referring to false statements made with the intent to install false beliefs a perversion that undermines trust in society.

Yet the capacity to lie is undoubtedly a universal human development, and our language is full of nuanced descriptors of this behaviour – from barefaced lies to bluffing, from exaggeration to fabrication, or from perjury to puffery. So it is not surprising that in this age of neuroscientific breakthroughs, a most intriguing area of investigation concerns the impact that modern technology is having on the human tendency to “stretch the truth.”

In the early ’90s, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology concluded that the more detached people are from their interlocutor, the easier it is to lie. In a diary study of 77 people who recorded their every day social interactions, participants were asked to note when they told lies and which medium they were using. Across two distinct samples, people reported telling more lies more frequently over the phone than face to face.

If it seems that it’s harder to look someone straight in the eye and tell a lie than it is to fib over the phone, it should not be surprising that participants in these experiments have also been observed to lie more in written communications that in verbal exchanges.

However, in a newer study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, scientists were surprised to find that people lied 50 per cent more when writing emails than in handwritten letters.

In this experiment, a group of participants were told that they had to split $89 between themselves and a partner who they had not met – a partner who did not know the exact size of the pot. Participants were asked to send either an email or a handwritten letter to their partner indicating the size of the pot and the allocation.

As it turned out, there was no partner. Rather, the test was to see what participants would do using email or a handwritten letter. In the experiment, 24 of 26 people lied about the pot’s size using email, while in the handwritten group, only 14 lied. Lying increased by more than 50 per cent from pen and paper to email.

What is even more alarming is that the researchers perceived that lying is seen as an everyday social interaction process. In addition, participants felt more justified in lying using email and seemed unconcerned about the potential damage to their reputation of lying in an email versus a handwritten letter.

“People seem to feel more justified in acting in self-serving ways when typing as opposed to writing,” said co-author Terri Kurtzberg, an associate professor at Rutgers Business School in New Jersey.

No honour online?

In a paper titled “Being Honest Online,” the researchers also concluded that people feel they have more capacity to mislead when using high-tech communication than with more traditional methods.

Another co-author warned that businesses should be particularly careful when dealing with email.

“There is a growing concern in the workplace over email communications, and it comes down to trust,” said Liuba Belkin, an assistant professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.

“You’re not afforded the luxury of seeing non-verbal and behavioural cues over email, and in an organizational context that leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation and – as we saw in our study – intentional deception.”

As well as lying, negativity seems to be another problem with email. Another study conducted by Kutzberg and her colleagues in 2005 looked at the academic review process for scientific journal articles and concluded that academics were “systematically more negative about each other’s papers when the process was conducted online.”

This study also found that performance reviews conducted online tend towards the negative as well.

To explain this, associate professor Charles Naquin and his associates at DePaul University called upon a theory put forward by eminent psychologist Albert Bandura called “moral disengagement theory.”

Bandura’s theory looks at how people “release” themselves from their normal ethical standards such as playing fair, respecting others or telling the truth. In other words, how they rationalize and allow themselves to commit acts that they know are wrong.

There are many ways that humans do this, but two of them fit perfectly with sending emails, as outlined in an article on PsyBlog entitled Email: Why People Feel Lying is Justified. It argues that both “changing how the offending actions are viewed and creating psychological distance from the harmful consequences of the action” are encouraged by three characteristics of email:

Less permanent: People think of it as a substitute for conversation rather than a letter. People feel they are “chatting” more in an email, rather than writing to each other.

Less restrained: People behave in a more disinhibited way online. Online exchanges show less conformity to social norms; people seem to display much less restraint and are less worried about what others think of them.

Lower personal connection: Studies show that online, people feel less trust and rapport with others, leaving them with a sense of disconnection.

This and other studies indicate that electronic communications is profoundly changing our personal ethical boundaries. However, the sheer volume of electronic communication is worrysome. From my perspective, the increasing use of everything from online surveys to job applications creates a built-in dilemma – how believable is the information being collected?

Business models that eliminate personal contact do so at their own jeopardy. Make no mistake, as online communication appears by its very nature to be suspect, looking someone in the eye is still the best way to assure a truthful relationship.

Image: © Tetiana Zbrodko – www.Fotolia.com

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

First we’ll eat – then we’ll talk

This is the next contribution to this blog by Associate Bob Bailly, a Calgary-based neuro-marketing practitioner.

brain junk food 090727 mn 300x225 First we’ll eat – then we’ll talkBy Bob Bailly

I remember several road trips as a teenager travelling with my parents and my younger brothers and sisters to California from Calgary. Back then it was a three-day journey for us, stopping in Idaho Falls, Las Vegas and a final day across the desert to Los Angeles. My mother was normally a trouper, but the heat, the kids and perhaps my dad made these journeys for her a challenge. I remember she would pop her head out of an open car window, reminding me of a dog with his tongue flapping in a hot breeze.

This is when I first discovered a very interesting trick my father would use when discussions about anything became a little testy during the drive. He’d stop talking and would start looking for a restaurant. “First we’ll eat – then we’ll talk,” he said on more than one occasion. Once said snack was secured, mom’s testiness disappeared and her world certainly seemed more sublime.

My dad was on to something. “Hangry,” a mash of “hungry” and “angry,” is defined by the Urban Dictionary as being “when you are so hungry that your lack of food causes you to become angry, frustrated or both.” I’m pretty sure we’ve all experienced this. As it turns out, science has determined that it’s effects can be measured and I now see why my dad’s prescription was wise indeed.

Jonathan Levav, an associate professor at the Columbia Business School, recently combed through 1,100 parole hearings for inmates from four Israeli prisons. Eight judges presided over these hearings over a 10-month period.

Judges spent their day in three sections, split by a morning snack break and lunch. The judges could decide when to take a break, but not in what order they would hear their cases, which were assigned to them arbitrarily.

Levav discovered that at the beginning of the day, judges paroled prisoners about 65 percent of the time, but over the morning, paroles dropped to almost zero until a break. After a snack, the judges immediately began paroling prisoners about two-thirds of the time again. However, as the hours wore on till the next break, positive decisions once again dropped to almost zero.

Through a complex analysis, Levav was able to determine that the severity of the crime and time served didn’t sufficiently correlate to the likelihood that a judge would rule in a prisoner’s favour. Instead he postulated they chose the easier of the two decisions when they were hungry. It took judges more than seven minutes to grant parole, but only five to deny it. One suggested hypothesis is that hard decisions and the hard work for the brain takes a toll. As a result, judges, like most people, get tired and seek easier mental solutions. The severity of the original crime and the ethnicity or gender of the parolee wasn’t relevant. The only thing that really mattered was the judges’ snack break.

Levav told Nature Magazine, “The work shows the consequences of mental fatigue on really important decisions, even among excellent decision makers. It is really troubling and quite jarring – it looks like the law isn’t exactly the law.”

This point is especially well taken in this brave new world of social media. Linda Forrest blogged here recently that ‘Your name here’ is your brand ambassador, whether you like it or not. I wonder how many of the executive temper tantrums and errors in judgment that have caught headlines in recent months and left PR staff scrambling in damage control mode could have been avoided with a Snickers.

But this extends beyond what happens on camera. It encompasses the interactions of your frontline staff with customers, your response to a cranky comment on your blog, even how effectively you are going to pitch that investor with your great idea. Marketing is about engagement. It pays to know when to step back, take a breath and recharge the batteries to ensure the encounter, and the outcome, is a positive one.

The way we’re working isn’t working

So it should come as no surprise that other scientists also believe that humans aren’t designed to act like computers at high speed for long periods of time. One of these is Tony Schwartz, author of The Way We’re Working Isn’t Working. Routinely, we neglect our evolutionary past, and neglect four key needs: “Our physical needs, met through fitness, nutrition and rest; our emotional need to feel valued; our mental need to control our attention; and our spiritual need to believe what we do matters.”

“The more continuously and longer you work, the less incremental return you get on each additional hour,” he said. “We are physiologically meant to pulse, and we operate best when we move between spending energy and renewing energy. We value spending energy, and we are good at it, but we undervalue renewing energy, even though that’s a powerful way to improve performance.”

According to Schwartz, our bodies operate in 90-minute intervals, or the ultradian rhythm, moving between high arousal and fatigue. Working for longer periods of time creates all kinds of physiological signals to take a break and “refuel.”

From an organizational standpoint, he has some advice for managers. “We are arguing for a genuinely new paradigm in work. We’re saying to employers, ‘Don’t worry about the number of hours your employees work; worry about the value they produce and let them figure out how to do that’ and ‘Stop trying to get more out of your people and focus more on investing in them.’”

Leaders are encouraged to inspire and energize employees to make appreciation a cultural value. “There’s a principle in psychology that ‘bad’ is stronger than ‘good,’ in which we default to noticing what’s wrong and we are much less likely to focus on what’s right. But if you’re a leader or manager, think of the feeling of being valued as a critical source of nutrition for human beings. It’s a food and people need it to thrive.

“That’s not to say they should be praised for things that don’t deserve to be praised,” Schwartz said. “But it is to say that it serves not just an employee well, but a manager or leader well to be really alert to where there is a reason to appreciate and recognize another person – not as an employee of the month, but as an employee of the minute.”

He has several tips to consider.

Nap during the workday: Our internal clocks are programmed for short midday naps, and could be one of the most reliable ways to influence performance. Research fully supports the notion that naps improve memory and performance.

Work in waves: We’re not designed to work continuously for hours. He believes we’re most effective working in 60 – 90 minute intervals, followed by renewal time.

Motivate through giving thanks: By recognizing real accomplishments and eliminating fear and anxiety over use of time, performance will improve.

Multitasking is a bad idea: Our brains are not wired to simultaneously focus on separate tasks. Performance and retention of information is best when we focus on one thing at a time, so he suggests tackling your most important task first thing in the day, shutting out distractions such as email and phone calls.

Bring sprirituality to your work: Schwartz is quick to point out “this doesn’t mean holding hands and singing Kumbayah. Instead, consider your purpose. We bring more energy to activities we enjoy and feel meaning beyond our immediate self-interest.”

I’ll add one more thing to his list:

First we’ll eat, then we’ll talk.

Image: NeuroKüz

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Election emotion and the politics of fear

This is the next contribution to this blog by Associate Bob Bailly, a Calgary-based neuro-marketing practitioner.

Home Computer Bomb Election emotion and the politics of fearBy Bob Bailly

In my first posting, I promised that this blog would investigate how human evolution has impacted the way we do business, why we are the way we are, and why we act and feel the way we do in our personal and business lives. When it comes to evolution, two areas of investigation are of interest: first, the evolution of the human brain as it relates to how we make decisions, and second, how and why we like to live and operate in tribes.

A few weeks ago a Globe and Mail column by Margaret Wente, The Amygdala Election, provided an eloquent discussion of both phenomena visibly on display in the current Canadian federal election.

The idea of believing and following the traditions of a tribe, in this case Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc Quebecois or Green, are worthy of examination (and will be looked at in subsequent posts). But of more interest to this discussion, Wente sugggests that many Canadians have already made their voting decision in their paleomammalian brain – and their thoughts are being bathed in emotion.

She points out that while Canadians believe that their decisions are based upon on reason, “the neuroscientific evidence is overwhelming that we form our opinion first, then find the facts to back them up.” And these quick decisions often, if not always, have an emotional backing that is based upon fear. If detecting fear is simply a manifestation of our how our brains are wired, then politicians are quick to exploit this phenomenom.

David Linden, in his excellent book, The Accidental Mind, gives an eloquent argument for how the human brain has evolved and why. According to Linden, the design of the brain has been limited by three characteristics of its evolution:

1.   During the course of evolution, the brain has never been redesigned from the ground up. It can only add new systems onto exiting ones.

2.   The brain has a very limited capacity for turning off control systems, even when these systems are counterproductive in a given situation.

3.  Neurons, the basic processors of the brain, are slow and unreliable, and have a rather limited signaling range.

Gary Marcus writes of the brain as a Kluge in his book of the same title. A kluge is defined as “a clumsy or inelegant – yet successful – solution to a problem.”

Marcus points out that: “Adequacy, not beauty, is the name of the game.” It is a term much used by computer programmers rushed for time in software development. New programing is incorporated into old software to allow for additional features or applications without going to the effort of redeveloping that old code from the ground up. As long as the new combinations of programming don’t interfere with each other or cause issues, they will be kept. Over time, kluges can become quite complex.

Which explains why the evolution of the human brain is the reason we shouldn’t be too complacent about our decision-making prowess. Optimization is not an inevitable outcome of evolution, our brains are certainly not optimized, and our decisions are not always rational.

Me, myself and I

While humans have one head, that head is actually filled with three brains, each as distinct as our heart, lungs and liver in function. The newest of these brains in evolutionary terms is the cortex, which started to grow in size around three millions years ago and appears linked to bipedal motion. As humans we use this part of the brain for rational, complex thinking.

The cortex is layered on top of an older brain, often referred to as the mammalian brain, so named because we share this particular brain with all other mammals. In evolutionary terms this mid-brain started to become predominant in the geologic record in animals about 40 – 60 million years ago following the great extinction of the dinosaurs. This is the brain of our emotional processing, the place where feelings are formed and considered. It is where we find the amygdala.

The mammalian brain has in turn grown over a much more primitive brain – an old brain estimated to have evolved about 400 million years ago with the dinosaurs that is still prevalent and relevant in the lives of all land-based animals, including reptiles and amphibians.

It’s those giant lizards that give us the clue to the behaviours we share with all invertebrates, and it’s also the brain where most decisions arise. The old brain, or reptilian brain, sits atop the spinal column and is responsible for most of the subconscious functioning of our bodies. This is the brain of survival, controlling everything from our heart and liver to movement. It’s been so good at its role and function that it has remained pretty much intact over its 400 million-year pedigree. Snakes, turtles and crocodiles all share this brain with humans.

The key point of all this is humans are subject to the influence of all three brains, not just the cerebral thinking brain we are so proud of. As a result, human behaviour – and this certainly includes business behaviour – is subject to the intricate workings of our primitively designed brain operating in a new and complex environment. We shouldn’t be too surprised that sometimes our actions defy logic, because much of the time it’s our more emotional and survival brains that are really doing the “thinking” for us. Emotion over reason is more natural than reason over emotion. Which means that at election time, it would seem that our survival brains are simply looking for evidence to support a decision we’ve already made, and we’ll tend to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit our current view.

Or as Globe reader Anne Rowe wrote in a comment on Wente’s column: “Silly me – I thought my deep-seated visceral distrust of Stephen Harper was caused by his blatant abuse of power and incremental erosion of our democratic process and institutions. According to Margaret Wente, my fears and anxiety are rooted in my limbic system and more specifically in my amygdala. Holy smokes, does this mean that, to allay my concerns, all I have to do is locate a surgeon to remove that pesky little amygdala and ‘hey presto’ – Stephen Harper morphs into Lester Pearson! Phew, what a relief!”

Image: www.linuxhaxor.net

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dogs in our midst

This is the next contribution to this blog by Associate Bob Bailly, a Calgary-based neuro-marketing practitioner.

dogs in our midst 300x225 Dogs in our midstBy Bob Bailly

Rather than working earlier this week, I was looking over pictures of my last month down south in Argentina. As I was smiling over a photo of a Buenos Aires dog walker – who are well represented in that great city, can be seen everywhere and are not always so good about cleaning up after their care – I was reminded of some research I recently uncovered. It’s about dogs too. But more specifically, it’s about the potential business implications of our relationship with “man’s best friend.”

Have you ever had a dog as a pet? Did or do you consider it part of the family? If you answered yes, or even if you’ve never personally been involved with a dog, it’s not hard to see that humans and dogs have formed a symbiotic relationship that is beneficial to both species. In Argentina, proof is on the streets in the form of hoards of professional dog walkers and the need to watch your step.

The fact that both humans and dogs are pack animals probably goes a long way to explain why both species understand and accept hierarchy, roles and leadership attributes common to animals that thrive in groups. Dogs have been part of human tribal experience for a long time (likely arising from the domestication of wolves and coyotes in our early pre-history), but could dogs help us in our modern workplace? While it has been well documented that dogs act as social catalysts (prisons and senior facilities often incorporate contact with dogs as part of their programming), surprisingly little research exists to document the effect of introducing dogs into the workplace. That fact drove Christopher Honts and his colleagues at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant to wonder if the presence of a dog in the workplace might make people collaborate more effectively. They devised  two different sets of experiments to see if it would, and sure enough they found that dogs in the workplace do have a positive effect on team collaboration attributes.

In the first of two experiments, they brought together 12 groups of four individuals. Each group was given a task to develop a 15-second advertisement for a fictitious product. While everyone was encouraged to contribute ideas, ultimately the group had to decide on only one.

Some of the groups had a dog “underfoot throughout,” while the others had none. When participants later answered a questionnaire on how they felt about working with other members of the team, the researchers found that those who had a dog about “ranked their team mates more highly on measures of trust, team cohesion and intimacy than those who did not.”

In their other experiment they used 13 groups to test whether the presence of an animal could alter a player’s behaviour in a game known as prisoner’s dilemma. In the version of the game played by these volunteers, all four members of each group had been “charged” with a crime. Without talking to other members, individuals could choose either to snitch on their team mates or to stand up for them, knowing in advance that each individual’s decision would affect the outcomes for all participants, including themselves. “The lightest putative sentence would be given to someone who chose to snitch while the other three did not: the heaviest penalty would be borne by a lone non-snitch. The second-best outcome came when all four decided not to snitch. And so on.”

Having a dog around made volunteers 30 percent less likely to snitch than those who played without one. Their moral – “more dogs in the workplace and fewer in police stations.”

Whether dogs are a necessary condition for a more collaborative workplace is certainly still open for consideration, but without doubt bringing your four-legged friend to the office won’t hurt. If it turns out that we can work better together with a dog underfoot, why not consider adopting an office pooch?

Experiments are continuing with other animals. In the meantime, just watch your step if your venturing out. There are dogs in our midst.

Photo: Bob Bailly

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ignore your evolutionary history at your peril

This is the first contribution to this blog by Associate Bob Bailly, a Calgary-based neuro-marketing practitioner.

By Bob Bailly

neuroscience 300x238 Ignore your evolutionary history at your perilIf you are interested in why people do what they do, why they buy what they buy, or why they behave like they do, then my contributions to this blog may be for you.

If you are interested in learning what science has to teach about the best ways to convince, communicate and motivate people, then you should also see benefit in future posts.

Or, if you’re intrigued with why the so-called smartest species on earth, whose rational thought is capable of glorious invention and sophisticated insight, is also prone to individual and group behaviour that is at times mind boggling, my posts will definitely interest you.

This is really all about you and how evolution has contrived you to be who you are, acting and feeling the way you do. It’s also about how to improve your business performance.

Ten years ago I thought knew a fair bit about marketing, I had studied brand management and, because I had spent 23 years in the advertising agency business, I believed I knew a lot about communication theory as I practiced my craft.

Ten years later, I’m not so sure.

Of course, I’ve always known that markets, brands and communication are all about an audience, a customer, a person. And working for some of Canada’s most recognized and successful advertising agencies brought me an incredible opportunity to learn the tricks of the trade – concepts to motivate customers to consider or purchase my clients’ ideas, products and services.

The outstanding advertising and design studios for which I was fortunate to work taught me a lot. For instance, I learned the in and outs of how to manage a brand’s advertising, public relations and visual image.

But I now realize that I really didn’t understand why these strategies and tactics worked.

So what new insights have come to mind to change my point of view?

The first, while not obvious, is not about the brand at all, but more about how we perceive a brand (or anything, for that matter) in our minds. The explosion of knowledge gathered by neuroscientists and psychologists, arising from the use of CAT, PET, and FMRI scanners, showed me that marketers could distill ideas from these findings that could influence their customers to buy. By looking at what happens in our brains, and most specifically the region of the brain that actually makes those decisions, I learned a predictive selling and communication model based on neuroscience that could help any practitioner communicate and sell more effectively.

However, after learning and applying this knowledge myself, I realized that these findings left me wanting.

As a marketing guy with a brand bent, I always felt that making a sale was less important than building a long-term relationship with a customer. The measure I always tried to consider was, “What is the lifetime value of this customer, and what do I need to do to continue to do business with him or her long into the future?” Today’s deal, however attractive, should always be measured against potential future deals. Rather than a “bird in the hand” analogy, I preferred the “will the bird lay eggs” approach.

Brand managers pretty much agree that building a brand is all about building loyalty. Good brand managers are intent about creating positive, consistent experiences for customers. Customers, on the other hand, choose brands that reflect and are consistent with their perceived values. Essentially, it could also be argued that the experiences we choose from the brands we use are reflective of the values we share with other people who use the same brands. In other word, we as users are looking for the same “value experience” as people like us.

It was this second insight that moved me to look beyond neuroscience and delve into the domain of anthropology — from looking at how an individual thinks. to how people work and live within groups; how social interaction evolved along with brain evolution.

While diagnostic equipment used by neuroscientists and psychologists can “see” what areas of our brains are firing when we perform certain tasks, this does not describe why humans have this ability to think and reason. In effect, while we each have a brain, what we do with it is what gives us a mind of our own. Collectively, we like to put our minds together for our collective benefit. A person prefers living in a group because living in a group helps ensure his or her survival. We are animals who like to hang in packs. We live our lives in tribes. And we often define who we are by our role, function and commitment to the tribes we join.

Naked and alone, humans would not have survived very long if we didn’t develop a cooperative approach to living. Cherishing family, living in tribes and developing tribal cultures are all part of a universal adaptation by humans that has allowed us to survive, thrive and conquer the world as we know it.

Yet, if cooperation is essential to our survival then why are we so war-like, competitive and aggressive to outsiders? We’re going to take a look at this as well, because it is as instructive to consider this dark side of our human nature as it is to observe how we behave when we are in harmony. Among other things, you’re going to learn why it’s important to have enemies.

So what has this got to do with running your business?

Make no mistake about it, this blog will be all about building your business, managing your brand and motivating every stakeholder to your cause. But to do this, you must trust that to achieve your goals, you cannot afford to ignore your evolutionary history. To figure out how to get to where you want to go, you must look first at how you got to here. And it’s not just about you.

And as it turns out, we can thank the monkeys in our midst for the insights we need. But I’m getting way ahead of myself. So with this as a beginning, look forward to some evolutionary science that may at first seem somewhat irrelevant, but I promise that if you follow along, your personal and business life will be forever changed for the better.

Photo: www.neuroscience.es

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,