Trick Your Brain Into Success
by
Stevie Ray

People who are about to face a stressful situation will often get advice from others. Some advice is solicited, some not; some helpful, some not. Luckily, brain research has begun to catch up with old Aunt Edna’s sage wisdom and it has provided some useful tidbits when facing a mental or social challenge.
For instance, we have all heard the old adage that, when you are about to deliver a speech and you are hit with stage fright, just imagine the audience in their underwear. I don’t know who first thought of this trick, but not only is it completely ineffective, but it borders on creepy. More importantly, it actually takes the brain in the opposite direction of being able to deliver a great speech.
The trick to overcoming stress and ensuring a successful outcome is to activate the parts of the brain needed in order to meet the challenge. Imagining an audience in their Underoos distracts the brain from the task at hand and inhibits the kind of thinking needed to present well. Instead, just before taking the stage you should imagine with as much detail the last time you gave a really successful presentation. If you take the time to recall the situation in rich detail—the image of the stage, the smell of backstage, the warmth of the room, the sounds of the audience—your brain will engage positive memory activities, helping you stay mentally sharp. Also, remembering positive situations from the past causes the brain to assume that the best is about to happen again; greatly increasing your chances of success.
Distraction is a great technique for overcoming negative or obsessive thoughts, but that is about as far as the technique will take you. For true positive control over your thoughts, you must make a conscious effort to link happy outcomes from the past to lay the foundation for positive outcomes in the future.

This is going to sound a bit cranky, but I trust it will be taken in the spirit intended. I am tired of hearing leadership and team work lessons from the military, sports, or from people who have survived horrible disasters. The most notable example was when the business world latched onto Ernest Shakleton’s Arctic Expedition in the early 1900s. When his ship was crushed by shifting ice, Shakleton led his men to safety by surviving over a year in the Arctic. Make no mistake, this story is one of great heroism and self-sacrifice, but I challenge any manager to translate the lessons of Shakleton’s voyage to the daily task of keeping a working group motivated and productive.
The same holds true for lessons from the military. Again, make no mistake that I hold our men and women in the armed forces in the highest regard, but teamwork in the field is quite different than teamwork in the office. In the military, and for Shakleton, teamwork has one goal; stay alive. The laser focus of survival, of keeping every team member at your side and breathing, allows one to forget petty disagreements and personality clashes. That is neither the kind of workplace we should strive for, nor one that would produce lasting results.
Sports analogies are also worthless in the workplace. All you hear is how “teamwork helped them to victory.” Duh. We understand that if one basketball team has five players on the court and the other has one, the team will probably win. But the world of sports is not creative, it is authoritarian. The coach creates the plays, the players each have one part to play. Any company or organization that followed this plan would not last long.
First of all, fear—whether for one’s survival or one’s job—creates a stress that only allows the brain to focus on one thing, eliminating the fear. This kind of stress cannot be endured for long, which is why managers have learned not to use the threat of firing as a motivating tool. Also, stress does not enhance creativity, it kills it. Those under extreme stress are always encouraged by leaders to “rely on your training.” This advice is effective for the military and for sports, where individualism is harmful to the team. For a working group, however, this atmosphere would quickly suffocate the company.
No one in a military unit would dream of harming a teammate, just as everyone on Shakleton’s team knew that their survival depended on the survival of everyone. In sports, the loss of a valuable teammate is obvious. That attitude, however, is not as easily maintained in day-to-day working environments. In some cases, the loss of a teammate can actually be beneficial to someone looking for an opportunity.
So now you’re asking, “So what? Why the tirade?” Simple. As leaders we must stop wasting our time by looking for simple analogies—military, sports, survival—to teach how us to lead. We have to dig deeper and work harder. We have to read, research, and challenge; not simply accept advice from people who hold a title. We must truly understand how people are motivated, not just what makes them want to survive.

Click here for a video and print version of Stevie Ray’s nationally syndicated column in the Business Journal Newspapers.

Improvising Business
by
Stevie Ray

Don’t Interview, Audition

Joseph, a director at a respected theatre was casting for the Shakespeare classic, King Lear and he was desperate to find just the right actor to play the part of Lear, King of Britain. Since this is the pivotal role of the play, Joseph needed to make sure the actor could not only handle the weight of the role, but would respond well if any glitches popped up during the performance. After posting the role on audition websites Joseph had two dozen actors eager for the role. He set up two chairs in the center of the stage and called in the first candidate, Nathan. Nathan took a seat and handed Joseph his resume. After reading over Nathan’s performance history Joseph said, “Well, it looks as if you have quite of bit of experience with Shakespeare. How familiar are you with the role of Lear?” Nathan thought for a moment and said, “I haven’t actually performed this role, but I think my experience in similar roles would make me a good fit.” “What work have you done that is similar to Lear?” asked Joseph. Nathan responded, “I played Duncan, the King of Scotland in Macbeth and Caesar in Julius Caesar.”
Knowing that teamwork is crucial in the theatre, Joseph asked, “If you were to have a problem with one of your fellow actors, how would you handle the situation?” Nathan said, “I like to speak to the other actor first, before involving any outside parties. If we weren’t able to resolve our issue, I would ask for a meeting with the stage manager. If that didn’t work, then I would speak to you about it.” “That sounds good,” said Joseph. “Now let’s deal with a hypothetical. Say you were in the middle of the second act of the performance in front of a sold-out house. One of the actors has forgotten his line, a line that is crucial in cueing you for your line, what would you do?”
The conversation went on for a while and Joseph, satisfied with all of Nathan’s responses, said, “It appears that you have everything we need for this role. I will speak with some of your former directors, but if they don’t have anything negative to say, the role is yours.” Nathan was surprised and asked, “Don’t you want me to audition?” “That’s not necessary,” said Joseph. “I think I know all I need to know about you.”
If you think this would be foolish way to cast a major character in a play, replace the scenario with a hiring manager and prospective employee and you have how almost every employee in America is hired. I believe that, unless you are psychic, interviews are a terrible way to learn about people. They are often just opportunities for the prospect to tell you exactly what you want to hear. Only in rare cases is a candidate foolish enough to say things that would show themselves to be lazy, uncooperative, or ill-suited for the job. And asking someone what they would do in a situation is a far cry from what they would actually do.
Auditions were instituted in theatre, music, and dance because it would be ludicrous to take someone’s word about their own abilities. Everyone wants the job, so of course everyone will say they are perfect for the part. If this is true for the arts, isn’t it true everywhere. I believe that interviews should be replaced with auditions, are at least both should work side by side. Once you have reviewed the candidate’s resume, you should be assured that he or she has the necessary qualifications for the job. Beyond that, you need to test real-world skills. That can only be accomplished by a real-world test. Scenarios should be created to test the abilities of the candidate. I have worked with many industries and found very few cases where an audition of sorts wasn’t helpful. Even if you are hiring an electrician to be part of a construction crew, you need to go beyond the candidate’s knowledge of wiring and code. Everyone needs to work well with the team, an audition for the electrician could involve putting him on a job site where he participates on a project. Other members of the crew would be instructed to throw curve-balls at the candidate—a surprise change in the blueprint, an uncooperative co-worker, the client shows up on the job site and isn’t happy with the work. Seeing how the candidate responds would tell the manager a lot about who he was added to his crew.
In one case, I was working with hiring managers to design auditions for security officers at a retail center. Any candidate for the job had to audition handling a frenzied mother who had lost her child at the mall, an unruly guest refusing to vacate the premises, and so on. Sure, candidates can put on their best face for an audition as well as for an interview, but an audition can be designed and performed well enough to push their boundaries, and buttons, such that it is a lot harder to fake their way through it. If you look at any job, there are unique skills and personality traits that can be exposed by an audition.
I certainly didn’t become a columnist for the Business Journal newspapers through an interview. Back in 1997 I sent in four sample columns for consideration. Luckily, I passed the audition.

Improvising Busines by Stevie Ray

February 13, 2015

Column 272

“At least it wasn’t me” Is No Excuse

A major news anchor has recently lost all credibility. A beloved comedian and actor will never be seen in the same light again. Executives, politicians, journalists, and front-line employees have all lost their jobs, reputations, and sometimes their freedom because of one reason—they lied. But I am not going to talk about the liars themselves, I will instead ask, “What about the other people who knew about the lie and didn’t say anything?” Even though there are deceptions that are small enough that they can be committed in private, the kind of lies that wreak havoc are almost certainly of a shared nature. Heck, when a news anchor on a major network makes a claim that involves dozens of other individuals, you wonder why it took the lie being exposed on national TV before someone came forward to speak. Read more