Decision making tends to be seen as a process in which two separate and opposite mechanisms struggle with the other. The emotional and impulsive mechanism within us tempting us to choose the “wrong” thing while the rational and intellectual mechanism slowly and ploddingly promises to lead us to the right choice. This description, which was also shared by many scientists until a few decades ago, is both simplistic and wrong. Our emotional and intellectual mechanisms work together and sustain each other. Sometimes they cannot be separated at all. In many cases a decision based on emotion or intuition may be much more efficient - and indeed better - than a decision arrived at after thorough and rigorous analysis of all the possible outcomes and implications. The new insights into the role of ‘rational emotions’ have been the result of a quiet revolution over the past two decades in three important research disciplines: brain sciences, behavioral economics and game theory. For example, complementing the theoretical work, there have been experiments into an important hormone called oxytocin - what has been called the ‘love’ or ‘trust’ hormone because of the sense of warmth and safety it’s associated with - and which is particularly active among mothers in the first few months after giving birth. Studies have looked at the role of oxytocin in social situations and found that those with higher oxytocin will trust more often than others, they’re not just making logical choices for their own benefit. Emotions aren’t a leftover from the evolutionary process but an effective and sophisticated tool for balancing and complementing our rational side. In the end, it is the feeling and thinking person who has the advantage, not the person who relies on thought alone. So in business, and in the workplace, it’s important for this need for balance to be reflected in management development and training, and in dayto-day understanding and treatment of colleagues. The ideal employee isn’t a Vulcan, but a feeling and emotional human who takes into account both the benefits and threats of the interplay involved. Why collective bonuses work better than giving rewards to individuals Continental Airlines was on the verge of bankruptcy in the 1990s. A key issue was the number of delayed flights, the “on-time” performance levels, leading to a poor reputation among regular travellers. The CEO introduced a new programme, “Go Forward”, which involved a simple deal: every employee - from the cleaners up to the board - would receive an extra $65 every month that Continental Airlines was in the top five for on-time performance. Staff weren’t working necessarily for the additional money for themselves, but to ensure that their peers didn’t lose out, a communal sense of needing to secure the cash for each other. No one wanted to be the weakest link that held up any aspect of the flight turnaround times. Within a single year, Continental went from a $619 million loss to a $224 million profit. 8 | Star Trek’s Mr. Spock would often give his Enterprise shipmates a look containing both sympathy and superiority whenever he believed they were allowing their emotions to rule over reason. The truth is, though, that if the human race had developed along the lines of the emotion-free Vulcans, our lives would be considerably more difficult, and in all likelihood we would not have survived at all. T A
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTI5NzM=