Following my radio talk on Quantum
Physics of Belief – Emotions last Saturday on #BlogTalkRadio, a former
coaching client of mine (who wishes to remain anonymous but, nevertheless
permitted me to share his story) reminded me of his experience and posed a
question on Amygdala Hijacks. I thought it appropriate to extend this
discussion to shed some more light on this topic. BTW, the response for the
radio talk was overwhelming. Thanks to all of my listeners and eMBC Blog
readers for your continued support and helping to inspire me to write more.
Most of the books I read about the brain and emotional intelligence
talk about an emotional or amygdala hijacking, which is what you see when the
boss loses it and goes on a rant. It’s not pretty, and almost always makes the
hijacker look pretty stupid. Amygdala hijack is a term coined by Dr
Daniel Goleman in his 1996
book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ.
My good friend, Dr Joel Bomane from Sunny Southern France
often talks about Amygdala in his weekly radio shows, ‘The Brain Odyssey’ series
as part of the VoARadio Network on #BlogTalkRadio. According to Dr Bomane, the
amygdala is the brain’s radar for threat. It is very handy when hunting for
food: it triggers a survival response faster than you can say “hungry tiger.”
The problem is that we no longer run into tigers, but instead encounter angry
coworkers and bosses on the prowl. But the amygdala makes no difference between
a threat to our survival and a threat to our ego. Same response: fight or
flight. And for many of us, we don’t think it’s manly to turn and flee, so we
engage in verbal jujitsu akin to World Heavy Weight Wrestling. But when in the
grips of a hijack, the amygdala makes mistakes. It only receives a fraction of
the data available.
The term amygdala hijack describes any situation in which a
person responds inappropriately based on emotional rather than intellectual
factors. The amygdala is the emotional center of the human brain and can create
split-second responses when a person is threatened. An inappropriate emotional
response to a perceived threat is thus called an amygdala hijack.
The amygdala is part of the brain for many of the higher
vertebrates. It regulates the fight or flight response that is key to the
survival mechanism for many animals, including humans and other primates. At
the moment a threat is perceived, the amygdala can override the neocortex, the
center of higher thinking, and initiate a violent response. In the wild or in
the presence of actual physical threats, this can be a life-saving function. In
ordinary day-to-day living, however, this amygdala hijack can inspire impulsive
responses the person will later regret.
On some levels, the human brain does not distinguish between
a genuine threat to life or health and a subjective threat, such as loss of job
status. While the latter might not even result in a change of income, a person
who values a job highly may respond to such a status change as if it were an
actual threat. If he or she takes inappropriate action against a co-worker or
supervisor, however, the result could be a demotion or even the loss of the
job. This illustrates Goleman’s three-stage definition of the amygdala hijack:
emotional reaction, inappropriate response, and later regret.
And in today’s workplaces, most of our dangers are symbolic,
not physical threats. So we react in ways we often regret later.
Let me give you an example of an event that took place sometime
ago with one of my coaching clients and this could vividly explain what we really mean
by an Amygdala Hijack.
I was working with an executive who found himself flooded by
his emotions and was pleased with himself for adopting a recovery strategy
whereby he cut himself off from any emotional content. He was surprised when
our coaching conversations explored the downsides of both behaviors and opened
the door to a third way of behaving.
One day, my client was planning to work at home, in order to
make a medical appointment in the morning and to avoid a two hour round-trip
commute to be in the office for the afternoon. That noon, he received a call at
home from one of his peers, another member of the executive committee, who said
he had to come to work. The firm had to decide how to address employee concerns
about leaving early due to weather risks from hurricane Gustav [August 2008 in Florida].
The situation was complicated because the management team in the parent office,
located in another state, did not want their distribution operations disrupted
and were insensitive to the weather potential and the employee concerns.
My client reacted strongly and rather rudely to his peer. He
did not like to be told he had to come in and was acting out his indignation.
He was not attuned to his peer or to the employees. To his credit, he caught
himself when he remembered the principle that leaders are expected to lead by
example and chided himself that he should not be asking others to do something
he was not willing to do. He shared this with his peer and then went to the
office, checking in on the various departments and being visible.
As we debriefed this event, it became clear that he had been
triggered by being told “he had to.” He got flooded by his emotions, driven by
his implicit memories of being told he had to do things. Once flooded, his only
strategy to regain control was to go for a full tourniquet block on his
emotions. While he prided himself on being able to “shed his emotions” and then
make a principle-based decision, we discussed how much he lost by both his
initial reaction and then by his secondary reaction. The initial reaction,
blasting a peer with his emotional outburst, cost him relationship points with
this peer. His secondary reaction, shedding all emotion, left him incapable of
being empathic with his peer and left him devoid of any curiosity. My client
described himself as being in a state of “brain lock.”
Another pathway would have been for my client to be aware of
his emotions without acting out on them. This requires a certain detachment. He
then could be curious about the context. It turns out that his peer was the
only company officer on-site and that she was very uncomfortable with the
decisions that needed to be made. He could have learned more about the issues,
as she saw them. An empathic conversation, one that did not happen, could have
built relationship and provided insights into alternative courses of action.
Following the pathway of keeping perspective and not acting
out on emotions could have provided my client with access to other ways of
creatively thinking about the situation. Leading by example is great, but other
factors also come into play. Ironically, his emotional flooding left him
starving for data.
This is a classic amygdala hijack. Dr Daniel Goleman, noted
for his work on emotional intelligence, explains how the flood of hormones from
the amygdala leads our brains to bypass the normal pathways for higher
functioning and throws us into an escalating pattern, where we see things
through our fight/flight/freeze lens. When this happens to us, this flood of
stress-related hormones leaves us feeling like we have lost 20-30 IQ points.
That is not something most of us can afford to do without!
Here are the five top amygdala triggers in the workplace,
from Tony Schwartz’ book The Way We are Working Isn’t Working:
1.
Condescension and lack of respect
2.
Being treated unfairly
3.
Being Unappreciated
4.
Feeling that you are not being listened to or
heard
5.
Being held to unrealistic deadlines
Especially in today’s climate of economic uncertainty, on
the tail end of an ugly recession, there’s a lot of free-floating fear in the
air. It doesn’t take much to trigger fear of family security, which is enough
to get anybody seriously upset.
If you find yourself struggling with on-the-job stresses
that are triggering either the emotional flooding or the emotional tourniquet
responses, Goleman advises mindfulness training, such as meditation, to reduce
the likelihood of an amygdala hijack. Meditation and similar exercises, such as
tai chi, encourages a person to focus on his or her surroundings and process
mental data in a calm state of mind. With practice, this kind of thinking will
become second nature and can allow a person to retain a sense of calm focus
even during crises. Here are some specific steps that one can incorporate in your
training to minimize such Amygdala hijacks:
1.
Pay attention. Notice when you are in the middle
of a hijack.
2.
Use deep breathing to gain time and space. This
lets more oxygen into your brain and lets your rational brain begin to work.
3.
Use a mantra or self-talk, like “I’m okay; this
isn’t a real threat. Give me a second to come out of it.”
4.
Ask for a few minutes, a time break, as in: “Let
me get back to you on this.”
Hijacks can last a few seconds or a few minutes, but the
sooner you break its spell, the better you’ll feel. You’ll learn you can keep
in control without losing face.
Yes, it is certainly good to be an intelligent, rational thinker and have a high IQ; this is an important asset. But you must realize that it is not enough. Your IQ will help you personally, but EQ, MQ, and BQ will benefit everyone around you as well. If you can master the complexities of these unique and often under-rated forms of intelligence, research tells us you will achieve greater success and be regarded as more professionally competent and capable. http://www.forbes.com/sites/keldjensen/2012/04/12/intelligence-is-overrated-what-you-really-need-to-succeed/?goback=.gde_3792366_member_111138355
ReplyDelete