Arkaro Insights

The Neuroscience of Collaboration: Understanding the SPACES Model with Hilary Scarlett

• Mark Blackwell • Episode 37

Share episode

Your brain wants to help you collaborate, but its first job is survival—which means threat detection often wins over clear thinking. We dig into how to design teams and projects that quiet the alarm bells and unlock focus, trust, and creativity, using practical neuroscience you can apply today.

With Hilary Scarlett, author of Neuroscience for Organizational Change, we break down the SPACES model—self‑esteem, purpose, autonomy, certainty, equity, and social connection—and show how each lever measurably shifts performance. You’ll hear why clear boundaries act like a playground fence that invites exploration, how agendas reduce anxiety, and why recognition rewires attention toward progress. We talk interbrain synchronisation and why an in‑person kickoff can create faster agreement and deeper empathy, then show how to sustain that bond online with rituals, a shared purpose, and simple behaviours that build tribe.

Psychological safety takes centre stage: not being overly nice, but welcoming candid questions, surfacing mistakes early, and learning fast. Drawing from aviation’s transformation, we outline how language, norms, and reporting change outcomes. We also explore autonomy and co‑creation—the IKEA effect, choice under constraints, and how ownership keeps people going when work gets hard. For inclusive collaboration, we share practical steps to support neurodivergent colleagues with reflection time and asynchronous input so quieter insights aren’t lost.

Walk away with three actions you can use immediately: listen deeply when certainty is scarce, revive confidence by recalling past wins, and reduce stress with shared laughter or a simple team meal. If you’re leading through AI‑fuelled change, these human fundamentals are your edge. Subscribe, share with a colleague who runs cross‑functional teams, and leave a review with the SPACES lever you’ll try first.

How to contact Hilary Scarlett

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hilaryscarlett/
Website: https://www.scarlettandgrey.com/
Book: https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Organizational-Change-Evidence-based-Practical-ebook/dp/B0DK822VW1

Send your thoughts to Arkaro







Connect with Arkaro:

🔗 Follow us on LinkedIn:
Arkaro Company Page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/arkaro
Mark Blackwell: https://www.linkedin.com/in/markrblackwell/
Newsletter - Arkaro Insights: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/arkaro-insights-6924308904973631488/

🌐 Visit our website: www.arkaro.com


📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/@arkaro

Audio Podcast: https://arkaroinsights.buzzsprout.com


📧 For business enquiries: mark@arkaro.com

Hilary Scarlett:

The SPACES model stands for these six factors that if we've got them, we can focus, we can perform, we can be more creative, we can collaborate better. But if we haven't got them, our brains go into a negative place where we can't work at our at our best. So it's a really useful planning tool. It's also a really useful conversation to have with the team about which is the one that really matters to them most. Because all six matter to all of us, but we do have different preferences and can be useful to know which one matters to people most when we're trying to work with them. So the six factors are.

Mark Blackwell:

This is Mark Blackwell. Welcome to the Arkaro Insights Podcast. This is the show where we help business executives with tools and techniques to thrive in the adaptive world. So I guess, like you and I, we've been hearing a lot about AI recently. Indeed, if you've been listening to the Arkaro podcast, you'll be hearing a lot about AI. And one of the topics that emerges from this, which I find quite interesting, is it forces us to think about what it means to be human. If we're going to dance with AI and collaborate with AI, we need to know what our strengths are as well as our weaknesses, so that we can be most productive in an AI-enabled world. And in those conversations, I'm hearing three C's come up a lot. I'm hearing the C for creativity, C for curiosity, and a C for collaboration. So Hilary and I, we decided that we'd talk about the third C today, collaboration. But I've got a feeling that we're gonna be mentioning maybe creativity and curiosity possibly in the discussion as well. But I think it's really important and very timely that we think about how our brains work and who we are as we're engaging in AI. And so that's why I'm really happy and very proud that we've got Hilary Scarlett on the show today. So Hilary has now got to the third edition of a very popular book, uh, and which is going to tell us all about uh the neuroscience for organizational change, and we're going to use that concept to understand things. And I think neuroscience for me, I find a very powerful tool when you're working with technical people who often think this human stuff is just fluff, and we should get on to science and the engineering, that really hard stuff in the workplace. But neuroscience gives us a route in to how humans are with some seriously hard science. So thank you for that. Hilary, how did you get here? Tell me more.

Hilary Scarlett:

How did I get here in terms of neuroscience? Well, well, first of all, good morning, and uh, thank you for inviting to be on the podcast. I'm really delighted to be here. How did I get here? Good question. My background has been in organizational change for many years, and I've always had an interest in the people side of change. How do you help them through change in organizations? And having done so in organizational psychology quite a few years ago, I came across an article written by a psychiatrist saying we can now understand enough about the human brain to apply that knowledge to the world of work. And that caught my interest, thinking perhaps if we can bring a bit more science, a bit more evidence to what goes on, that would be really helpful. So originally I studied virtually with neuroscientists in the States. Over the last um 12 or so years, have also been working with neuroscientists here in Europe. And I kind of see my role as taking their work out of the lab and bringing it into the workplace in a practical way, bringing some of the science and evidence to leaders in organizations, but perhaps more importantly, what does that mean to me as a leader going through change in organization?

Mark Blackwell:

Brilliant. Thank you. So we're talking about collaboration, and particularly in the context that we may not all be in the same physical building all the time. And we're working for a even a medium-sized company, you can be in multiple sites nowadays, very, very easy. And let's start on our journey of collaboration with that email pings in your box to say you've been selected for Project Magma or whatever it is, uh, and you will be meeting on a team. Tell me what you know about our brain, what are the things that are likely to happen to most people?

Hilary Scarlett:

When that email is well, in some ways it depends because very much when we receive that email, much of what influences what we take in is our past experience. So if that email, if I've been invited to work on Teams before like that, and and I enjoyed it and it was a pleasant experience, and maybe I learned a lot, then the voice in my head is going to subconsciously saying, Well, this could be interesting, this could be good. If on the other hand, um I've been like that before and I find it quite difficult, then the voice in my head will will be saying, you know, do you really want to do this? What watch out? Also, current circumstances have a big impact on what we take in. So if I'm already stressed out and feeling uncertain about what's going on and that email arrives, that's just going to add to my stress. So things like past experience have a big impact about how we feel about that email, current circumstances and personality have a have a big impact. So that'll be a first thing. And then the second bit will be about well, who else is on the team.

Mark Blackwell:

Right, yes. And whether they're in your tribe or you're not in your tribe, do you know them? Will you be able to live up to the expectations? Do you know the leader? So, and tip, yes, please.

Hilary Scarlett:

You know, absolutely. And I think we'll be checking that you know who else is on that email list. Do I, as you say, do I know them? Are they are they as I say are they are they my tribe? Because we I guess our first instance is to look for people who we know, who we have a connection with, and that will make a difference too, whether we feel there's some kind of connection, some kind of belonging.

Mark Blackwell:

Yeah. And so I I'm fascinated by one of the ideas that you mention a lot in your book, is that our brains are fundamentally not designed for today's workplace. We think about a model of two million years ago running on the savannah, and we see something yellow flashing at speed, but we haven't diagnosed what it is. What is our response going to be? Excitement or fear?

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah, exactly. And the whole threat kicked in much faster because it's all about, as you say, it's our brains still think they're after the savannah. The key goal when we're after the savannah and now in the 21st century is survival. That's your brain's overarching goal. And to achieve survival, the key thing is to avoid threats because we could do without a glass of water and food for quite a while and still survive. But if if yeah, if that threat kicks in, that's that's that's the immediate threat to our survival. So absolutely, threat kicks in much faster than than reward response.

Mark Blackwell:

And that's something very important for leaders to know when they see people's reactions to behaviours that a threat response is normal. It's not an abnormal.

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah, absolutely. It is really important in terms of survival, but um it's it does impair our ability to think quite often too, because when we're in that threat state, prefrontal cortex, which part of the brain are so important in terms of the work that we all do, often referred to as the executive center of the brain, because the part of the brain where we do our kind of considered thinking, working memory, emotional control is in the prefrontal cortex. When we're in that fight or flight response, the prefrontal cortex gets deprioritized by the brain. So we can't think as well, we don't have that same level of emotional control either.

Mark Blackwell:

So I think when a leader gets the team together for the first time, and we can talk about how that team performs shortly, but maybe be aware of some of these things going on in the organization too, not to read people and make judgments too quickly and how they're responding to that initial situation.

Hilary Scarlett:

No, absolutely, because it g it is giving people a time to get that, yes, initially people might be kind of checking out. Do I fit in? Do I belong? Do I like these people? Um, do I feel competent in their eyes? All those kind of things will be going on in our heads. So one of the key things I think for leaders to do is to make those connections between the team. If you've been asked to be on that project team, is in some way to get to help people feel connected and get to know each other slightly better, be it face to face or be it on online.

Mark Blackwell:

Absolutely. Because you've got a great model to sort of double-click on this to help all of us understand what we need to thrive in these situations. And it's called the spaces model. I know it ends up with a social connection, but talk us through the spaces model.

Hilary Scarlett:

Uh no, absolutely. And so the spaces model sounds these six factors that if we've got them, we can focus, we can perform, we can be more creative, we can collaborate better. But if we haven't got them, our brains go into a negative place where we can't work at our at our best. So it's a really useful planning tool. Um, as it's kind of almost like a checklist how people got them. It's also a really useful conversation to have with a team about which is the one that really matters them most, because all six matter to all of us, but we do have different preferences and can be useful to know which one matters to people most when we're trying to work with them. So the six factors are the first one is self-esteem. So this is a part about thinking about feeling respected, feeling people trust me. Um, this one's also important to the people who want to feel they're um improving their skills. So the learners improve us in our teams, the self-improvers, that's important to them. So with self-esteem, it says how can we show people quickly that we we trust them, we respect them, how can we give people learning opportunities, how can we make them feel competent and capable? P is for purpose, and there's lots of research behind the importance of purpose, just that sense that what I'm doing makes a difference to the world, and particularly because we are such social creatures that we're making a difference to other people. So reminding people of the difference they're making, the contribution they're making. A is for autonomy, a sense of having some control. Um, and it can be quite tiny things, but as human beings, we need to feel we're not complete victims of what's going on. I've got a little bit of control over what's happening here in this project team or this change. C is is for certainty. Our brains are prediction machines, they want to know what's coming up, they are constantly, subconsciously trying to predict, trying to work out what's going to happen so it can better protect us. It's all part of survival. So, again, giving people certainty where we can, and these could be um clashy about the project, or just little things like sending an agenda before meetings. Because otherwise, I think so many of us have received invitations to meetings, don't quite know what the meeting's about, the threat response kick response kicks in, and we we get anxious about oh, what's that meeting about? Am I properly prepared? Will it be bad news? Have I done something wrong? So just sending someone agenda settles the brain. That's what the meeting's about. I can focus back on my work. So creating certainty where we we where we can. The E is for equity, a sense of fair play, a sense of transparency. And this one becomes all the more important to us when the organization is going through change, in that we have a sense, if there's going to be change around here, I want to know I've got as good a chance as the next person at getting the job I want or training I want or whatever it might be. And S, as you say, the last one is social connection. Do I fit in? Do I belong? Do people like me? Do I do I like them? The research is there's nothing soft about social connection. We are deeply, deeply social creatures. And when we feel we belong, we're in a much better place to perform. And I think with all the COVID lockdowns, some of the really interesting research that came out from that was how what a negative impact social isolation had has on us. So, say there's nothing soft about social connection. And I also think it's a really important one because I think there are times when we might say, Well, I can't give people more certainty right now. We don't have that. But I think we can always do something about a social connection, the quality of our relationship, just being a good list and just connecting with people, having some empathy.

Mark Blackwell:

Brilliant. Now, I'd like to explore any one of those. I could talk for hours about them. But one of the thick takeaways for me is you're quite right, is we're not equal creatures on this list. So having that as a checklist for some leaders is very important because particularly the sort of people who may become a leader may be those that thrive on ambiguity. And so certainty isn't in their system. And downplay that, for example.

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah, and absolutely and one thing I'll say to leaders too is I think say our brains do crave kind of certainty and want to know what's coming up. And often leaders do have a bit more control over what's coming up. Often they do have a bit more certainty, they do have a bit more information than people further down the hierarchy. So I think leaders need to remember that people further down the hierarchy, their brains might be in a more stressed place than theirs because they haven't got that same level of sense of control or influence over what might be coming up in the organization.

Mark Blackwell:

Absolutely. I mean, I've seen this so many times that leaders have been working on a problem for weeks or months and then deliver it to the organization, assuming that they will take it in as equally quickly as they have done, forgetting that their brain has been working consciously and subconsciously for a long time to work it all through with a lot more information than they're a part of. Yeah.

Hilary Scarlett:

I mean, talk Yeah, no, no, absolutely. Likewise, I've seen that. I've worked with organizations where, as you say, these might come up with great plans, but then kind of go into what I call broadcast mode and just kind of say, cut emoji, go, here's what's good for customers, here's what's good for you, here's what's good for stakeholders. Now please get on with it. And wonder why a lot of employees dig their heels in and don't want to do it. Because employees have not had that same chance to come to that moment of insight about, oh, I get it. I can see why option A is better than B or C. And we need to give employees that chance to get it if we really want them to be committed to the changes.

Mark Blackwell:

And I just maybe just you may not know about it. Recently I heard about the story about children in playgrounds. Have you heard about this?

Hilary Scarlett:

Oh, it's actually what I'm saying.

Mark Blackwell:

So this is great. When you're kicking off a project and you're thinking about the certainty mode, this is based on scientific research. If you build a playground and put children in it, they will play on the swings and roundabouts. But they won't go far from the swings and roundabouts. If you build a fence around the playground, the children will go, stay playing on the swings and roundabouts, will explore all the way to the edge, to the boundaries. And so if you want a team to be productive, to explore, to be creative, setting clear boundaries helps with this certainty thing, because our brains crave certainty. And as soon as we know the limit to which we can go to safely, we will explore to that limit because we want that safety and certainty. And that limit is often further than people think it is, which is why children stay on the swings and the roundabouts without a fence around the playground.

Hilary Scarlett:

That's that's yeah, that's a great example. Yeah, no, absolutely. Setting boundaries for people so we know what's okay and what's not okay. That's a great example.

Mark Blackwell:

So, but anyway, let's go back to starting the project. And right now, people are worried about budgets and everything. And we're getting this team together. Option A is cut costs and just have a Teams meeting. Option B is pay for some flights and hotels and get the team together for the first meeting. Give me some neuroscience examples of which one I should choose and why I may or may not want to spend some money.

Hilary Scarlett:

Right. Yeah, it's an integral. I I appreciate a lot of organizations I work with, you know, you know, budgets are limited. But if possible, if the budget is there, getting people together early on on a project is a really useful thing to do. That actually meeting people face to face just does on the hold change the way we feel about them. We all have what are called in-groups and outgroups. So in-groups, the people who are my tribe, I feel close to, I'm more forgiving towards them, I have more empathy towards them. Outgroups, the people I kind of, my brain sees them as from another tribe, so a bit of a threat to me. One of those things that helps to break that down, to bring people more into our in-groups, is gathering people together. The more we're kind of with people, the more on the whole we tend to put them into our in-group. So if the budget is there, getting people together face to face early on is a really positive thing to do if if we can. And then the work online will work that flow that bit more easily.

Mark Blackwell:

But I think you've got some science to say that it's more than just getting people together in a room in a making, you know, a formal office scenario. There are other areas where the collaboration can be helped in more of a social setting.

Hilary Scarlett:

Tell me about it Yeah, well, well, the with the some of the newest research coming out is what's um looking at what's called hyperscanning, to look at multiple brains at the same time, and put a little caps on us now and see what's going on when we're together or when children are in a classroom trying to learn or whatever it might be. And it and what they're able to identify is something called interbrain synchronization, when our same parts of our brains begin to be activated in the same way at the same time. And um, when interbrain synchronization happens, why should we care? Because when that happens, it seems to be we um we perform better on the whole. Um it's almost like we're looking at the world from a similar perspective. So we we seem to reach agreement more quickly, so we have more empathy for each other, say examples of teams working better. There seems to be more psychological safety there between people. And research does suggest that works better when we're physically together in a room rather than on screen. So hurrah for technology and all the fact we're having this conversation today because of technology. But but there's a price to pay, and I think we just need to be aware of that. So I'm very pragmatic about this stuff, but I think we just need to be think about when is virtual, when are virtual meetings good enough, and when actually do we need to be together.

Mark Blackwell:

In my takeaway, there needs to be a bonding period so that the later virtual meetings can be more productive because you've had that neuron neuron, that intra-brain synchronicity firing away right at the kickoff meeting.

Hilary Scarlett:

No, absolutely. And once we've got that, and because in-groups, outgroups, good news, bad news, they are very flexible. So the good news in-groups are very flexible. We can put people into our in-groups quite quickly, but we can also lose that as well. So it's important from the start of our projects as fast as we can to have that sense of team. And again, there's lots of interesting research about what creates that sense of team, that sense of tribe. Just having a name for the team, actually, research, just feeling I belong to the same, the same team as you. Suddenly I care that bit more about you than I do about somebody from another team. And one of the strongest and most constructive things I think we can do is reminding people our shared sense of purpose. So at the beginning of that meeting, and maybe every meeting we have, what are we trying to achieve together? I think is it one of the strongest ways to create a sense of team and tribe, and a really constructive one too, just reminding people. You might be from a different part of the organization, you might even be from a different company. But what are we trying to achieve together?

Mark Blackwell:

Absolutely. One of the most powerful questions starting a meeting with is why. I'm constantly amazed how long it takes intelligent people, when we're all intelligent people, to really get it, because we've all got different bits of information that has caused us to be there in the first place. So the knighting on uniting on purpose is key.

Hilary Scarlett:

Absolutely, yeah.

Mark Blackwell:

I have to say, as someone who lives in France in a culture that values the one or two hour lunch break and the concept of eating, is there some science that can defend this?

Hilary Scarlett:

Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, hold on the French. No, no, absolutely. No, absolutely there is research that shows just eating together actually again helps to create a sense of team and bonding. And even more than that, interesting, there's research that shows that those kind of meals where we share dish dishes, so like Chinese meals where you're passing plates around, or some Indian meals where you're passing plates around, just that very fact having a meal where you're sharing plates, passing plates to each other, actually does create our sense of collaboration and our empathy for each other. And people in negotiations afterwards are much more likely to work well together. So eating together, sharing plates is a really, again, a really positive thing to do.

Mark Blackwell:

Fancy okay. Note that everyone, when you're arguing with a finance manager, there is definitely money for the budget on the first team get together for the dinners. So we we can defend that, and we'll get that in the show notes where the science comes from from that. I think that's quite important for many. But see, no, this is all very serious stuff that we often forget, and it's taken over the ages that we've there was a reason why these things existed. For me, just one era to explore having those out-of-work bonding experiences as important as the in-work bonding experiences. If we're going to collaborate, we've got to remember the basic reason is that in an adaptive world, the problem isn't to be solved, is typically not known by experts. We all have a part of the solution, but none of us likely have the whole solution together. So we have to be curious about each other and be comfortable about that if the team is to be productive. And uh again, that makes us human, as we were saying from the three C's before: the creativity, the uh collaboration, and the curiosity.

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah.

Mark Blackwell:

But we live in a world where we're so keen to perform that we often forget that and we think about shouting first and communicating our thoughts and asking questions of the other. So that's the reflection. Have you had any thoughts on that?

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah, no, absolutely. And and that, and again, just out of gonna go back to that team set, just that curious, just just finding be before even the team gets going so much, just finding what we have in common. Because we tend to walk into a room and yeah, and see people's being quite different, put them into our out group. But one of the little exercises one of my clients does is uh when people are first coming together, is just to to find some kind of shared experiences. So who you know, who here is a football fan, who here is a twin. And it and it as interesting as what can be any question, but there's it's just this thing's like, oh, you're also a twin. Oh, you're you also support that particular football team. And it's these little things that help create set sense of of in-groups within the within the group that's so important in terms of connecting people and uh seeing people rather than seeing people as other, seeing them as part of part of my group, part of my tribe.

Mark Blackwell:

Gotcha. No, that's interesting. So we hear a lot about the term psychological safety.

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah.

Mark Blackwell:

Can you tell me what you think that is? And because I often hear people misunderstanding the term. What is it and how can we develop it based on neuroscience?

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah, for me, psychological, when we have psychological safety in a team, is a team where people feel they can speak out, they can ask a question, um, and as long as they're doing so constructively, that's that's to be encouraged. So it's a it's a team where people feel safe to talk about things mistakes they've made or question something, as long as it's done in a constructive manner. It's it's um so it's not a team that's all terribly nice to each other because people are able to ask the tricky question, say as long as they're doing so constructively. And it's it's there's there's great work by Amy Edmondson, academic, showing that you know, teams that have that psychological safety actually perform better because they're actually more willing to talk about mistakes and learn from those mistakes rather than teams where we feel we've kind of got to sweep it under the carpet and not talk about it. I think the good thing about psychological safety is we can create it within a team. You don't have to wait for the whole organization, a particular team can have it. Um, it takes time. I think the behaviour of the leader is so important. I've seen teams where it's been it's been fractured very quickly because suddenly a leader's got angry with somebody about something, or you know, kind of humiliated in front of the rest of the team. That absolutely it's fragile. So it absolutely shatters it. But um teams that can do it, I think do perform really well. And I think one of the great examples for me is the world of aviation, is the one I often cite in in workshops I'm running. Um, back in the 1970s, there were far more accidents, far more fatalities. Two key things the world of aviation did is one, they arise from black box recordings. Quite often the first officer did not quite have the language to challenge the captain. They could see something was going wrong, but didn't have the language to challenge. And captains in those days were very hierarchical, don't question me. They changed that relationship. So there was a discussion, the first officer could ask questions, make comments. The captain was much more open to that. So they're working much better as a as a team. And I think that's so true of many organizations, too. If we can just change that relationship between team and leader and have a leader who is open to being challenged to say, as long as it's being done constructively and within the interest of the group overall. So that's one key thing they did. The other key thing they did was encourage people to um report mistakes because they felt if if lots of mistakes are being made on a certain plane, maybe we need to change the configuration of the instruments or whatever it might be. So actively encouraging people to share their mistakes and not making them feel like fools about it. Every flight, please tell us what went wrong, and saying, thank you so much, that's really helpful. So actually welcoming those mistakes and then learning from that. And again, I think that's a great example for all organizations, for all teams. If only we can do that, get people to share their mistakes, as long as they're learning from them and they're not catastrophic, then that's a really helpful thing to do.

Mark Blackwell:

Uh totally with you on that. And and again, I know from a bit of this work from the safety experience I had at DuPont, where DuPont is big on safety. Yeah. Encouraging people to do this is uh one of the functions is metrics. And you've got to see the reporting as the positive, not the absolute number as the positive, especially in the early days. So get you entirely on that. Another thing about learning is tell me about the neuroscience of being given an idea and told to run with it, versus co-creating and building it within the team.

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah, no, absolutely. I've had some influence over an idea makes a big difference to us. And I think we've probably, if we can all remember times when we've been told to go away and do something, and that feels very different from when we're being involved and making that decision about what it is we're going to do. And I know things like coaching is coming much more to the fore as a way of leading people. Neuroscience would absolutely endorse that. Neuroscience shows that goals that we have chosen, we process in a different part of our brains from goals we've been given by our line manager. And not only that, research also shows if if it's a goal that I've chosen, when it gets difficult or tough, I'm more likely to keep on going if I chose that goal. And there's plenty of research that shows if we've chosen something, we have a sense it's mine, I chose it. So if it does get difficult, I will keep going with it, as opposed to a goal we've been given by somebody else who might go too hard. So the difference it makes to feel that we've we've kind of um in that decision making. And there's and there's something called the IKEA effect, the IKEA bias, which is this lovely thing about um IKEA that people might know you buy packs and you have to assemble it yourself. And researchers, if we've had to bash a few nails in ourselves or assemble it in some way, again, we feel more ownership of it. I had a bit of input to it. It makes a big difference. And indeed, in terms of influencing, um, one of the sort of techniques of influencing is allowing people to have a bit of input. Because if we've had a bit of input to something, again, we're more protective of that idea, we're more supportive of that idea. So giving people a bit of control, a bit of influence, whatever it might be, and it can be quite small, makes a big difference to us.

Mark Blackwell:

So the the control is not just the goal, selecting the goal, because it may be that you've had the goal given to you, but it's how you achieve that goal gives you the autonomy as part of the spaces model. Is that the science supports that as well?

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah, no, absolutely. It can be quite little things that that that make a difference to us. It can be, it doesn't and I think also I think I think leads do need to be very clear about because I think sometimes there's a desire to say, oh, we are involving you, we are engaging you. I think these need to be really honest with themselves about where are you genuinely involving people and where perhaps the decision has has been made. We can't all get involved in deciding which IT system we're going to go for. But within that, giving somebody some people a little bit of a bit of control. And and I should talk about IT. I was working with a bank a while ago and and with the technical team, and they were really frustrated. They said, how come, you know, when it's the latest iPhone comes out, everybody wants to buy it, the latest bit of kit or whatever. And yet when we try bringing new IT systems at the bank, everybody moans and complains. Well, I think one of the big differences is choice there. You know, I chose to go out and buy that new phone phone and work out how to work it. Whereas IT systems feel imposed upon us. So I think it is that sense of choice and control that makes part of the difference of that of that experience.

Mark Blackwell:

I mean, totally. There's a study that the MIT came out with earlier this year, and they talked about the shadow AI economy. Not on the one hand, 95% of AA implementations are not achieving their expectations. In the same world that up to 90% of employees use their own Chat GPT in the workforce.

Hilary Scarlett:

Yes, yeah.

unknown:

Yeah.

Mark Blackwell:

The blocker is not willingness to use it, it's just having part of the being believed that you're part of the process.

Hilary Scarlett:

Yes, yeah, yeah, yes, and doing it together with others. Yeah, so it's so important. Yeah.

Mark Blackwell:

So I think we've I'm just going through your spaces list. We've done certainty, we've done autonomy, we've done the social connection. Tell me about what a manager should think about in terms of self-esteem, for example.

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah, well, so that that's the one I think is about that making people feel that they are competent and capable and and trusted. So I think it with that one, it is about um I think so often we focus on all the things that we haven't got done, things we haven't got right, things yet to do, but actually pausing and and helping people to acknowledge what they have achieved. What they have learnt is really important. And we tend to focus on things we haven't got done because, again, the threat state is strong in the brain. So it's all about all those things I haven't got done. So we need to deliberately, as we counterbalance that in the organization and deliberately activate the reward state in people's brains. And one of those will be about recognizing the achievements people have made, how well they're doing things, showing that we trust them, those kind of things will help to activate that reward centre in the brain.

Mark Blackwell:

So that's, I think the only one we haven't mentioned so far is equity.

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah, and that's the one about and that can be a tricky one because that's the one about um fair play, about transparency. As I mentioned earlier, that it does go, our need for it does go up if there's going to be change in the organization. So this is about um being as transparent as we can. So this comes back to communication, being clear about what the criteria are, what's what success looks like, those those kind of things. But also making sure people do feel they've got as good a chance that the next person are getting the training they want or whatever it might be. So it can be a tricky one because one person's sense of what's what's fair is not another person's sense of what's fair, but constantly thinking about that and being transparent and communicating well comes under that one.

Mark Blackwell:

And making sure everyone feels their voice is being heard.

Hilary Scarlett:

Yeah, absolutely. Yes.

Mark Blackwell:

You've been in that situation where you feel that the leader has got their pet friend or something, and he always gets the voice in the room, and no matter what you're saying, it's not being heard.

Hilary Scarlett:

So that's the role of a leader is absolutely, and I think and I think, and there's a lot of talk about um neurodiversity these days, and especially let's say 20% of the population probably is neurodivergent. So chances are many of us do have neurodivergent people in our teams. And in conversations with with neurodivergent people, um, they particularly will say often they need a bit of time to reflect. People with autismorphs say, you know, if you have a meeting one day, it's really helpful for them the next day if they can have a catch-up with their manager and talk about their reflections or or their questions. So giving people that bit of time for especially people like that who might not want to speak out in front of the larger group immediately, they might need that time to reflect. And to be honest, for all of us, having that chance to reflect, to go away, and to come back again the next day and ask those questions because it's a quiet mind that tends to have those moments of insight or questions or whatever. You know, we have that phrase about sleeping on it. It's not by chance. Neuroscience would absolutely endorse that. So giving people a chance to go away, sleep on what we just discussed, and come back the next day and talk about it. And you say everyone having that chance to have their say, but giving some people that chance to reflect is really important.

Mark Blackwell:

Fabulous, Hillary. That's been a tour de force of the spaces model. I know from your book, but we've only touched a small part of it. So this is Hillary's book is Neuroscience for Organizational Change. Now it's third edition, very accessible, but all at the same time solid on real science. I really enjoyed reading it and I just dip back to it every now and then for sure. Hilary, thank you. Any key takeaways from this meeting that you'd like leaders to do? What three things could they action that they haven't been doing already, perhaps?

Hilary Scarlett:

Um, three things that can actually I well, part of the beauty of neuroscience, I think I think it is small things make uh make a make a big difference to us. And okay, I was working with an organization recently, going through lots of change where they had no answers at all, so complete uncertainty about what was going on. And one of the things we said to them is just be a good listener. If you can do nothing else, um just be a good listener, even if you haven't got the answers, because listening is rewarding to the brain. So if as a leader you're feeling I'm a bit stuck right now, just being a good listener is a really good, good, good thing to do. I think also if you've got people who are struggling right now, between in terms of change, feeling a bit out of their depth or whatever, get them to tell you about a time when they felt they were performing well. Because from a brain point of view, talking about a time when I was performing well is like my brain is back there again and can perform well again. So I think that's another really useful one. And perhaps on a lighter note, just having a good laugh with the team. Laughter is a great de stressor to the brain. So having a bit of fun when you get together, eating that meal and having a laugh together could be a really good way to get the brains, the team's brains into a good place.

Mark Blackwell:

Fabulous, Hilary. Thank you for that. Really enjoyed after my hope our listeners enjoyed it as much as I did. Great conversation. Thank you. Bye bye.

Hilary Scarlett:

Pleasure, I drew it too. Thanks for inviting me.

Mark Blackwell:

Bye bye.

Head Shot

Mark Blackwell

Host
Head Shot

Hilary Scarlett

Guest

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.

Just Great People Artwork

Just Great People

The Sixsess Consultancy