Mood Management

The Harvard research demonstrates that when leaders are in a happy mood, the rest of the office smiles with them. When a leader is in a happy mood they:

• think more positively about their own goals
• are more creative
• make better decisions
• are instinctively more helpful to those around them

On the negative side, when a leader is often in a negative mood they:

• are rarely successful
• have a negative influence on their followers, who seldom reach their potential
• will often end up being blamed for poor results

However, the research points out that in a negative situation, if the leader can recognize the effect they are having early enough, the impact may not be irreversible.

Understanding the Human Brain

Part of the reason for this lies with the human brain. The region of the brain that manages emotions, termed the limbic area, is commonly described as operating on an ‘open-loop’ system. Unlike the self-regulating nature of a ‘closed-loop’ system, the limbic area requires external stimulation to operate. Moods are created based on these external influences.

The open-loop system explains why, for instance, a sustained period of severe stress affects isolated individuals far more than socially active ones, or why intensive care patients with a loved one constantly nearby are more likely to recover than those without. It also accounts for the feelings of warm affection shared between couples.

Open-loop also accounts for a measurable harmonization in physiological characteristics, such as heart rate, between two friends deep in conversation.

Finally, in social environments, such as an office or meeting room, individuals rapidly attune to each others’ physiological and emotional states. A study by Bartel and Saavedra in 2000 monitored 70 work teams in various industries and discovered that, when working closely together, the teams soon began to share moods, both positive and negative. [3]

Negative Moods

Interestingly, negative moods are not as significant in their effect as positive ones. Put differently, positive moods improve performance more than negative moods cause performance to deteriorate. Yet a good mood in itself does little; it has to be the right kind of good mood. At a time of crisis, for example, a smiling, upbeat mood would simply be insensitive. The Harvard research terms this ‘dynamic resonance’ and believes it is closely connected to the Emotional Intelligence characteristics established by one of the research authors, Daniel Goleman: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management. Successful resonance should enable leaders to blend their mood into situations as they present themselves.

Part of the problem, though, is that many leaders have little idea what resonance, if any, they have with their subordinates. The study authors call this, ‘CEO disease’; namely, a complete lack of awareness by leaders of how they are regarded within the company. This arises not through a lack of concern about how people perceive them – most leaders are extremely keen to find this out. Rather, they mistakenly presume both that they are themselves capable of discerning people’s perception of them; and that negative impressions of them will be communicated directly to the leader.

The Harvard team quote one CEO who is apparently typical: ‘I so often feel I’m not getting the truth. They aren’t lying, but neither are they telling me everything I need to know. I’m always second-guessing.’ The problem does not simply lie with subordinates who hesitate to tell their boss exactly what they think for fear of being penalized. Less evident is that asking people to comment on how a leader’s emotional disposition affects their work is seen as too unconventional and vague a question to answer accurately.

The solution instead is rather more complex. The Harvard team explain that a person’s emotional skills, while having a genetic component, are significantly influenced by one’s personal life experiences. These in turn build on each other, to the extent that a set pattern of behavior is difficult to alter. As the authors point out:

‘And therein lies the rub: The more we act a certain way – be it happy, depressed or cranky – the more the behavior becomes ingrained in our brain circuitry, and the more we will continue to feel and act that way.’

Five Steps to Managing Your Moods Effectively

The solution proposed by the Harvard team is a five-stage process designed in effect to ‘rewire the brain towards more emotionally intelligent behaviors.’ They outline it as follows:

1. Who Do I Want to Be?

This involves imagining an ideal version of yourself. The team asked leaders to imagine themselves eight years ahead as an effective leader, taking into account how they would feel, what they would do, and who would be there. This exercise encouraged them to envisage how their working and emotional lives might change if they had a different outlook.

2. Who Am I Now?

This step requires leaders to begin to see themselves as others do. A small element of ‘ego-defense’ is inevitable, and indeed is a useful way of remaining enthusiastic and positive when making difficult decisions. Yet as the team suggest, ‘self-delusion should come in very small doses.’ They suggest remaining continually receptive towards criticism, even going as far as actively inviting negative feedback. The team quote research by McEvoy and Beatty at Rutgers University which found that ‘360-degree feedback’ from employees was an accurate means of predicting a leader’s effectiveness over the ensuing two, four and seven years.

Interestingly, the team also stress that it is important not to focus simply on the leader’s perceived weaknesses. Having an accurate picture of their main strengths provides the motivation and focus for them to concentrate on counteracting their weaknesses.

3. How Do I Get From Here to There?

The Harvard research team suggest that the learning process might take the form of the leader requesting written, anonymous feedback from every team member about their mood and its effect on the team.

Other techniques might include a weekly diary in order to compare, week by week, the leader’s self-perception with that of those around him, or the appointment of one or two carefully chosen colleagues to act as both coach and devil’s advocate.

It must be understood that any change will be gradual and will only be successful if the leader’s increased state of awareness is fairly constant. Paying more attention to new methods of behavior in itself acts as stimulation for the breaking of former habits and the experimentation with new ones. This works on a neural as well as on a perceptual basis; mental rehearsal of a task stimulates the prefrontal context, that part of the brain that motivates us into action. The more we do this, the better we perform the task.

Interestingly, the prefrontal context becomes most active when the subject attempts to modify an ingrained response: ‘The aroused prefrontal cortex marks the brain’s focus on what’s about to happen. Without that arousal, a person will re-enact tried-and-true but undesirable routines.’ So, from a neurological point of view, an actively preplanned learning process is an essential component in breaking old behavior patterns and successfully constructing new ones.

4. How Do I Make Change Stick?

As already suggested, altering ingrained behavior patterns requires continual rehearsal. But modifying one’s actions in practice is not the only way that these patterns can be altered. This can actually occur merely by visualizing a different method of behavior: ‘imagining something in vivid detail can fire the same brain cells actually involved in doing that activity… So to alleviate the fears associated with trying out riskier ways of leading, we should first visualize some likely scenarios.’ This can be done anywhere when the leader has some spare time, e.g. while traveling to work, or when waiting for colleagues to arrive at a meeting.

5. Who Can Help Me?

The final stage involves forming what the Harvard team term ‘a community of supporters.’ They cite an executive learning program carried out by Unilever where managers came together in regular learning groups, initially to discuss career and leadership ideas. This gradually evolved as trust built up between the executives to include frank discussion about each other's technique and performance. The advantage of such an approach, the team tell us, is that ‘people we trust let us try out unfamiliar parts of our leadership repertoire without risk.’

Conclusion

The bad news is that a leader’s mood affects corporate results. The good news is that moods, while certainly ingrained in our individual psyches, are not fixed there permanently. With recourse to the proper techniques, unproductive mood swings and harmful fluctuations of temperament can be reduced; to the good of leader, staff and organization alike.