by Stevie Ray

First published in the Business Journal Newspapers, January 2021

Right now, in America and across the world, every business leader has one thing on their mind, “How can I keep my staff focused and productive during one of the most stressful periods in history?” Your business might be afflicted with changing sales patterns, distance working, and economic upheaval, but the greatest threat to your company is rising stress levels among your staff. Stress doesn’t just make people feel bad, long-term stress decreases mental acuity, creative problem-solving, communication skills, and cognition. Add increased rates of illness, and the impact of stress will certainly be seen on your P&L.

Some companies deal with stress with a let’s push through this approach. That approach does work, but only for Acute Stress. Acute stress is short-term, like a traffic jam or a heated argument. The human brain is designed to manage acute stress. However, chronic stress—negative events that last a few hours each day over a period of weeks—is beyond the brain’s ability to mitigate. When in chronic stress, the brain engages in the General Adaptation Syndrome. This syndrome has three stages: Alarm Reaction Stage: the fight-or-flight response, Resistance Stage; the body attempts to repair itself. If stress does not dissipate, this stage can cause irritability and poor concentration, Exhaustion Stage: a draining of physical and emotional resources, resulting in burnout.

Rather than employ quick pick-me-ups—which boost morale only briefly—leaders should consider the issue of Locus of Control, a term in psychology which refers to where control is thought to originate in someone’s life. People who feel an Internal Locus of Control believe that the events in their life are the result of their own actions. People who feel an External Locus of Control feel that events are the result of the world acting upon them. Even though both types of people experience the same event, those with an internal locus of control experience less stress, recover from the negative events more quickly, and are more productive.

To be clear, it is not who actually has control over their environment that matters, it is those who feel in control who do better in life. If a child gets good grades and you say, “That is wonderful. You are naturally smart,” or “You are so gifted,” you are fostering an external locus of control. The positive outcomes are a result of factors outside of the child’s control. However, if you say, “You must have worked very hard to get those grades,” you are fostering an internal locus of control. Children who feel an internal locus of control go on to choose more challenging work, and excel at future tasks. Those with an external locus of control shy away from difficult challenges, and get lower grades. In short, it isn’t the size of the challenge that causes stress, it is the belief in the individual that they have control over their situation that allows them to succeed.

It is easy to see the comparison between school children and your staff. How well your staff can face potentially stressful challenges goes beyond effective training, and the tools they have to perform their job. Those two factors certainly do play a role in employee satisfaction and success, but the ability to employ those factors depends on whether the employee feels in control of their life. The great thing about locus of control is, we don’t need to actually be in control, we just need to feel in control. In studies about stress and productivity, those subjects who were able control even minor decisions fared better. In one study, subjects were placed in a booth and told that an uncomfortably loud buzzer would sound every few minutes. Some subjects were given a button and told that they could choose when the buzzer would sound. Other subjects had no control over the buzzer. Both groups were subjected to the same negative stimulus, but those with the button reported feeling no stress at all.

Rather than saying, “Don’t worry, I’ve got this,” give your staff a feeling of control by asking their input, take a vote rather than issue a directive, allow them to make as many decisions as possible, no matter how insignificant. Controlling everyday decisions puts the power back into their hands, and helps them navigate the stressful waters ahead.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

I like to keep my wits sharp. To do this, I often listen to debates on my computer while performing mundane tasks at work. The debates cover every issue you can imagine; immigration policy, foreign affairs, education, you name it. As you might expect, there are experts on both sides of the issue armed with reams of documents. As you also might expect, neither side gives an inch. No matter what either side says, the other team remains cemented to the notion that the opposing team is mis-informed, ill-intentioned, or outright evil.

This particular program polls the audience prior to the debate, and then again afterwards. The winner is not the team with the highest number of followers among the audience, but the team that changed the most minds. As in our two-party political system, there are people on both sides of each issue, and there is a percentage of undecided voters. In politics, most strategists acknowledge that there is little chance of converting a Republican to a Democrat, and vice versa; they focus on the independent voters. But, the teams in the debate program are hoping to change everyone’s minds. And indeed, when the results are displayed at the end of the debate, I am pleasantly surprised as to how many people began the debate voting for one side, yet changed their vote based on what they learned.

How does this relate to business? There isn’t a day that goes by in any company without some sort of debate. The problem is most debates bear little fruit. People typically come to the table with a point of view, and facts to defend their position. A lot of talking occurs, with very little listening. Most people are just waiting for the other side to stop talking so they can make their point. If one person makes a point, and the other person doesn’t agree, the strategy is to re-state the position; louder. We humans seem to think that the only reason other people don’t agree with us is that they didn’t hear us the first time. Then, when the other person says, “I heard you the first time,” we re-state our position, using different wording. (Perhaps they heard us, but just didn’t understand our version of English.)

I can’t think of a bigger waste of time for the American worker than debates during meetings (other than surfing Facebook to see photos of your friends on vacation). Bad debates can cause long term damage to working relationships. When people agree with us, we view them as smart and well-intentioned. When people disagree with us, we don’t trust them even if they are correct. This not only makes for poor teamwork, but poor decision making. Many times, decisions are made based on facts, but on which decision will cause the least amount of grief among the team.

If I were looking to hire people, I wouldn’t hire the experts who fervently present their case and stick to their guns, I would hire the people who either had the courage to admit that they were undecided in the first place, or those who had the ability to change their minds. These are the kinds of people who demonstrate respect for various points of view, and who keep their ego out of the equation.

Examining one’s ego is a crucial part of leadership; since our ego does more decision-making than our intellect. A neuroscientific study examined why people become so angry when their beliefs are challenged. It was discovered that, when a firmly held belief is challenged, the same parts of the brain activate as when we are threatened with physical harm. In short, the brain feels that a challenge to our beliefs is the same as a challenge to our very safety. It is no wonder that, when arguing an issue, people will scream, sweat, and pound the table. Their brains are preparing for a fight that goes beyond words.

How does a leader handle this? When a difficult issue is at hand, remind the group that they need to distance themselves from the issue. Treat ideas as facts, not a representation of the person discussing it. And remind the group that how they debate will carry into how they work together once the debate is over.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

The brain can be a negative thing. There are all kinds of evolutionary reasons for this, but chief among them is that avoiding bad rather than seeking good has kept humans alive on a planet filled with threats such as dangerous animals, nasty neighbors, and convenience store sandwiches. How this negative tendency affects the workplace depends on which part of the brain you choose to dial up when responding to situations; the reactive brain or the thinking brain. This distinction is especially important for leaders because a reactive leader acts like a critic—negative, whereas a thinking leader acts like a coach—positive. Before you dismiss this by thinking “I am a great coach because I give my employees knowledge and support,” let’s take a closer look at how you might react to situations without knowing it.

Here is a clear illustration on the difference between critic and coach; between someone who uses the reactive/negative brain versus the thinking/positive brain. Have an employee stand up in a room. Place a bowl on the floor behind the person. Give the employee a handful of pennies. The goal is for the employee to toss a penny over his head and try to hit the bowl, without turning around to look at it. Your job is to direct the employee toward a successful outcome. This game is  a metaphor for every task you give an employee, and the outcome depends on whether you act like a coach or a critic.

A critic begins with “Your job is to hit the bowl. Go” The employee tosses a coin and misses. The boss says, “You didn’t hit the bowl. Did I make the assignment clear? Do you know where the bowl is located? Do you have all the pennies you need? Great. Now hit the bowl.” Another coin is tossed, and it lands on the floor. The critic/manager says, “You missed again. I thought the goal was clear. You have a bowl. You have plenty of pennies. You should have everything you need to hit your target, now go!” This continues until all the pennies are gone and no one is happy. Laugh if you want, but a lot of managers treat employees this way without knowing it. They make statements that only point out what is wrong, what is missing, or what is inadequate.

Now play the game with a coach. A coach says, “Alright, we’re going to work together to make sure we hit the target. What do you need from me to help you? Where should I stand? What kind of direction works best for you? Let’s try the first coin and see what kind of adjustments need to be made.” After the first miss, “Great! If you toss the next one a little to the left and with a little more power, I think you will have it.” After each miss, there are more corrections, until a coin finally makes it in the bowl.

I have used this game as an illustration of coach vs. critic at many workshops and some managers respond, “The second way takes way too much time. I don’t have time to molly-coddle my employees through every project.” The reality is it takes less time to be a coach than to be a critic. To be sure, coaching takes more work up front. There is usually more discussion and more clarification. Being a critic may take less time during each meeting because the boss simply says “yes” or “no” and that’s it, but this approach ultimately wastes more time because you will need a lot more meetings to get things right.

Everyday comments are either critical, “This report doesn’t have all the necessary facts!” or coaching, “So far, so good. All we need to do is add more supporting facts to back up our position.” Both approaches will eventually result in the same outcome—the boss getting what he or she wants, but one builds a better relationship and a stronger, more educated employee for the future. The tough part is, coaching requires using the highest centers of the brain. Criticizing is an instant reaction; no thought is needed. Coaching requires knowing the employee and just what is needed to get him or her to the next level of development. Criticizing only looks at what is wrong. Coaching examines what is needed to make it right. Simply put, being a coach takes more smarts.

I made reference to this in an earlier column about effective teams. It has been discovered that a crucial quality for a good team is psychological safety. A team that provides a safety net for its members develops more innovative ideas, solves problems faster, and has higher retention. Some managers don’t like this construct. One reader e-mailed me after reading the column about psychological safety and ranted about how I was promoting weakness and lack of accountability (in fact, teams that display psychological safety report a greater feeling of accountability to fellow members and to the outcome of the project).

In a similar vein, there are people who feel coaching is weak, and criticizing is strong. It is true, coaching has the appearance of being softer because it doesn’t seem to carry the weight of authority that critics have. However, the psychological outcomes are quite opposite. Whereas a critic instills fear, a coach inspires a feeling of obligation on the part of the mentee. With a coach, the employee feels obligated to reciprocate the positive direction and teaching; creating a good fear, of not wanting to disappoint the coach. For a coach, employees will walk through fire. For a critic? They won’t even grab a bucket of water.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.