Tag Archives: brain

NLP vs. NeuroLeadership

NLP vs. NeuroLeadership | Clarifications Coaching LLC

“Whenever I’m talking to people about what I do, they often ask if NeuroLeadership is similar to NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming). It’s a buzzword that’s been around for a while now and it’s an easy anchor for people to rely on when they’re thinking about neuro-related programs. While, yes, it is true that both NeuroLeadership and NLP have “neuro” in their titles, they are quite distinct in many ways.

Many people think that because NLP has “Neuro” in the title, it is linked to neuroscience. It is not in the strictest sense. It is about how the brain works and how we process information – just not from neuroscientific perspective of looking into the brain. Rather, NLP comes from techniques originating in the fields of therapy and linguistics…”

Read More

Leave a comment

Filed under Spotlights

The Importance of Maintaining A Healthy Mind Platter

Healthy Mind Wheel

“In my Wellness Coaching sessions, I use neuroscience to inform and guide my client’s journey. Specifically, I use the NeuroLeadership Institute’s Healthy Mind Platter as developed by David Rock, Daniel J. Siegel, Steven A.Y. Poelmans and Jessica Payne. They posit that, in order to achieve optimal brain function, it is necessary to equally value and set aside time for each facet of a Healthy Mind Platter. This recommendation includes facets such as: Sleep TimePhysical TimeFocus TimeConnecting TimePlay TimeDown Time, and Time In. While a few of these areas may be immediately recognizable as important for everyone to prioritize, not many of us give each equal value. Yet these areas represent everyday activities that are essential to holistic, optimal brain health.

The Healthy Mind Platter encourages everyone to look beyond our socially-supported but ultimately myopic fixation on Focus Time. Instead, we are to situate our need for Focus Time proportionately within a comprehensive matrix that includes all of our needs. Focus Time, of course, is highly valued in work environments, but it is just one of the many areas that require the assignment of intentional time throughout the day in order to be optimally functional. The other areas can be divided into three categories: Physical NeedsSocial Needs, and Cognitive NeedsPhysical Needs, including Sleep Time and Physical Time, are typically focused on first since they can produce more tangible consequences when neglected…”

Read More

Leave a comment

Filed under Spotlights

Why NeuroLeadership?

neuroleadership

“When I first meet people and tell them about what I do, the most common question is “What the **** is NeuroLeadership?” It’s definitely a field of study that has not yet entered the mainstream leadership vocabulary, even if they are already acquainted with prevailing research. As defined by the NeuroLeadership Institute, NeuroLeadership is “a specific new field dedicated and committed to exploring the processes in the brain that underlie or influence human decisions behaviors, and interactions in the workplace and beyond” (Ringleb and Rock 2008). Specifically, it explores the neural basis of leadership and management practices and how they intersect with social-cognitive neuroscience, neurobiology, and the social sciences.

Now, that’s a mouth full! In layman’s terms, we’re talking about how to “improve leadership effectiveness within institutions and organizations by developing a science for leadership and leadership development that directly takes into account physiology of the mind and the brain.” More and more, organizations have noticed an increased need for the efficient and effective development of leaders and of processes for continuous improvement in leadership quality…”

Read More

Leave a comment

Filed under Spotlights

Where Neuroscience Meets Leadership

I was originally introduced to the concept of NeuroLeadership via an article that my step-sister was reading for a work conference – SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others (NeuroLeadership Journal, 2008). I was intrigued, since I had been researching effective leadership methods for the company I was with at the time, and so I googled around to see if there were any books or materials on the subject. I found a sole Handbook of NeuroLeadership on eBay and jumped at the opportunity.

Image result for neuroleadership handbook

I started reading it casually in my spare time but soon found myself completely immersed. The idea that we could bring the rigorous study of neuroscience to the realm of leadership and actually study how the brain functions when performing in leadership capacities was fascinating to me. Previously, the leadership models were primarily based on behavioral science. They would observe what people did in leadership roles and find trends across sample populations. They would then hazard educated guesses at cause and effect, presumably trying to predict how future actions would play out. It seemed to be a somewhat reliable method dependent on predictable probabilities, but it was an imperfect system that didn’t really get to the root of HOW these leadership trends were taking place.

I’ve always been interested in how humans interact with each other and themselves, and, since I was on a quest to find real answers and solutions for the organizational problems that my company was facing, it seemed like NeuroLeadership might be THE answer.

The researchers assert that the four tenets of NeuroLeadership are: Decision Making, Collaborating with Others, Self Regulation, and Facilitating Change. After years of analysis and study, the NeuroLeadership Institute has discovered that those four factors determine whether someone will make an effective leader or not: They must be able to make sound and timely decisions, they must be able to collaborate with others as well as manage others’ inter-collaboration, they must be able to effectively regulate their own emotions and actions, and they must be able to enact organization change in an efficient and non-threatening manner.

The researchers even went as far as studying the mechanisms within the brain that are vital to such processes and are in the process of determining ways in which people can strengthen and enhance their leadership skills by training their brain. Sound theory and action, all in one? Sign me up!

After I had read through as good portion of the 600-page Handbook, I decided to further my education and take advantage of the Foundations of NeuroLeadership Certificate course that the Institute offered online. The course confirmed my recent realization that, in the realm of business development, businesses can only develop as far as the individual people running the business were willing to develop themselves. They could try and enact external changes to the business – trying different processes, organizations, or procedures – but the changes would be slightly effective at best and downright destructive at worst.

This concept of personal development fascinated me since I had been on my own personal development journey for a while already and, to be honest, trying to excel in the world of small business development by trying to get unwilling colleagues to enact new changes to the way they did things was a frustrating endeavor. I was already reading all kinds of personal development books in my spare time so I started looking into how to make personal development into my career.

I had considered life coaching briefly when I had first shut down my store two years earlier, and here I was at a crossroads once again (probably more like a brick wall). But, now, I had the resources to do a certification so I did some soul-searching and mind-mapping. I realized that I had the perfect combination of experience, interest, and opportunity to finally launch into the career of a coach.

Now, as I move into expanding my coaching business, I am creating services for Wellness Coaching as well as NeuroLeadership Coaching because I want to create a coaching practice that incorporates neuroscience to maximize the potential benefits for the client. As always, I will try to keep you guys updated as I progress. Stay tuned!

Leave a comment

Filed under Bookmarks

“If the natural unfolding of the process of life can create and take care of the entire universe, is it reasonable for us to assume that nothing good will happen unless we force it to?”

pg 5 - quote

Leave a comment

August 11, 2016 · 2:14 am

Science Reveals How the Brains of Social Justice Activists Are Different From Everyone Else’s

“…People who are more sensitive to the ideas of fairness and equity are driven by logic, not emotion, according to a recent University of Chicago study published in the Journal of Neuroscience…

The research suggests that human rights and environmentalist organizations could get more public support by appealing to people’s sense of logic and reason rather than to their emotions. Efforts to combat global warming, for example, saw a surge in public support after scientists and statisticians began publishing data about how much sea levels and temperatures would rise instead of sad polar bears on a floating iceberg.

Perhaps your activist alter-ego was more level-headed than you thought.”

 

FACTS PEOPLE.

 

 

(My bolds are applicable to those thoroughly depressing commercials about abused animals and hungry children.)

Leave a comment

June 26, 2014 · 9:20 pm

What the Brain Can Tell Us About Art

By ERIC R. KANDEL

Published: April 12, 2013

“THIS month, President Obama unveiled a breathtakingly ambitious initiative to map the human brain, the ultimate goal of which is to understand the workings of the human mind in biological terms.

Jonathon Rosen

Many of the insights that have brought us to this point arose from the merger over the past 50 years of cognitive psychology, the science of mind, and neuroscience, the science of the brain. The discipline that has emerged now seeks to understand the human mind as a set of functions carried out by the brain.

This new approach to the science of mind not only promises to offer a deeper understanding of what makes us who we are, but also opens dialogues with other areas of study — conversations that may help make science part of our common cultural experience.

Consider what we can learn about the mind by examining how we view figurative art. In a recently published book, I tried to explore this question by focusing on portraiture, because we are now beginning to understand how our brains respond to the facial expressions and bodily postures of others.

The portraiture that flourished in Vienna at the turn of the 20th century is a good place to start. Not only does this modernist school hold a prominent place in the history of art, it consists of just three major artists — Gustav KlimtOskar Kokoschka and Egon Schiele — which makes it easier to study in depth.

As a group, these artists sought to depict the unconscious, instinctual strivings of the people in their portraits, but each painter developed a distinctive way of using facial expressions and hand and body gestures to communicate those mental processes.

Their efforts to get at the truth beneath the appearance of an individual both paralleled and were influenced by similar efforts at the time in the fields of biology and psychoanalysis. Thus the portraits of the modernists in the period known as “Vienna 1900” offer a great example of how artistic, psychological and scientific insights can enrich one another.

The idea that truth lies beneath the surface derives from Carl von Rokitansky, a gifted pathologist who was dean of the Vienna School of Medicine in the middle of the 19th century. Baron von Rokitansky compared what his clinician colleague Josef Skoda heard and saw at the bedsides of his patients with autopsy findings after their deaths. This systematic correlation of clinical and pathological findings taught them that only by going deep below the skin could they understand the nature of illness.

This same notion — that truth is hidden below the surface — was soon steeped in the thinking of Sigmund Freud, who trained at the Vienna School of Medicine in the Rokitansky era and who used psychoanalysis to delve beneath the conscious minds of his patients and reveal their inner feelings. That, too, is what the Austrian modernist painters did in their portraits.

Klimt’s drawings display a nuanced intuition of female sexuality and convey his understanding of sexuality’s link with aggression, picking up on things that even Freud missed. Kokoschka and Schiele grasped the idea that insight into another begins with understanding of oneself. In honest self-portraits with his lover Alma Mahler, Kokoschka captured himself as hopelessly anxious, certain that he would be rejected — which he was. Schiele, the youngest of the group, revealed his vulnerability more deeply, rendering himself, often nude and exposed, as subject to the existential crises of modern life.

Such real-world collisions of artistic, medical and biological modes of thought raise the question: How can art and science be brought together?

Alois Riegl, of the Vienna School of Art History in 1900, was the first to truly address this question. He understood that art is incomplete without the perceptual and emotional involvement of the viewer. Not only does the viewer collaborate with the artist in transforming a two-dimensional likeness on a canvas into a three-dimensional depiction of the world, the viewer interprets what he or she sees on the canvas in personal terms, thereby adding meaning to the picture. Riegl called this phenomenon the “beholder’s involvement” or the “beholder’s share.”

Art history was now aligned with psychology. Ernst Kris and Ernst Gombrich, two of Riegl’s disciples, argued that a work of art is inherently ambiguous and therefore that each person who sees it has a different interpretation. In essence, the beholder recapitulates in his or her own brain the artist’s creative steps.

This insight implied that the brain is a creativity machine, which obtains incomplete information from the outside world and completes it. We can see this with illusions and ambiguous figures that trick our brain into thinking that we see things that are not there. In this sense, a task of figurative painting is to convince the beholder that an illusion is true.

Some of this creative process is determined by the way the structure of our brain develops, which is why we all see the world in pretty much the same way. However, our brains also have differences that are determined in part by our individual experiences.

In addition to our built-in visual processes, each of us brings to a work of art our acquired memories: we remember other works of art that we have seen. We remember scenes and people that have meaning to us and relate the work of art to those memories. In order to see what is painted on a canvas, we have to know beforehand what we might see in a painting. These insights into perception served as a bridge between the visual perception of art and the biology of the brain.

So how does our brain respond to portraiture? As we look at a portrait, our brain calls on several interacting systems to analyze contours, form a representation of the face and of the body, analyze the body’s motion, experience emotion, and perhaps, empathy. Along with these instantaneous responses, we form a theory of the subject’s state of mind.

The brain’s representation of faces is especially important to the beholder’s response to portraiture. Our brain devotes more space to reading the details of faces than to any other object. We react strongly to the expressionist works of these Viennese artists, in part, because our brain contains specialized cells that respond powerfully to the exaggerated facial features these painters portrayed.

Moreover, the sense of stimulation we often experience when we look at a portrait is thought to be due in part to the activity of “mirror neurons.” Signaling by these cells in the motor areas of the brain can make us perceive the actions of others as if they were our own.

All of which goes to show that the real “eye” of the beholder is the brain itself.

Eric R. Kandel, a professor of brain science at Columbia University, a senior investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, is the author of “The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind and Brain, From Vienna 1900 to the Present.””

Leave a comment

April 15, 2013 · 2:41 pm