Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a conference, with many of my colleagues across Southern Ontario, where one of the keynote speakers was Simon Sinek of "Start with Why" fame.  His was an inspiring address primarily centred on the physiology of incentives and performance.  One aspect of his speech struck me because I had just been reading Ariely's "The Upside of Irrationality", most specifically his chapter entitled Paying More for Less: Why Big Bonuses Don't Always Work".  First, let me discuss Sinek's argument briefly.  Sinek spoke about the body's chemical responses to stimuli.  In particular he spoke about the differing and paradoxical effects of cortisol and oxytocin.  He explained that cortisol is the hormone produced in excessive amounts during stressful situations.  Oxytocin, on the other hand, is called the Love Hormone and is responsible for feelings of trust, empathy, arousal, etc.  Cortisol's positive aspect is that it produces what we call the Fight or Flight Syndrome which causes the body to produce readiness needed to flee dangerous situations.  However, the body's response is the same during stressful situations where actual physical fight or flight is not needed.  It also, apparently, inhibits oxytocin production which in turn limits the body's ability to trust, empathize, and love.  

Enter Ariely.  Through a variety of lab experiments, Ariely makes the conclusion that "using money to motivate people can be a double-edged sword.  For tasks that require cognitive ability low to moderate performance-based incentives can help.  But when the incentive level is very high, it can command too much attention and thereby distract the person's mind with thoughts about the reward.  This can create stress and ultimately reduce the level of performance."  

The two explanations seem to be correlated.  If promises of high performance based incentives cause stress, then logic would tell us that cortisol release would permeate these situations.  High cortisol levels inhibit oxytocin and make us less able to trust others and empathize with them.  High stress also inhibits our ability to perform well.  In a nutshell, the argument could be made that high performance based incentives kill performance and poison positive workplace climates.  

I wonder what this conclusion means for our classrooms.  I wonder if our grading schematics and evaluation methods could be construed as high performance based incentives and could inadvertently be killing student performance and poisoning classroom atmosphere.  This is not a profound conclusion for those of us who have thought seriously about our student evaluation methods.  However, I think that the arguments presented by these two authors may provide new evidence for those of us who have concern about the demotivating aspects of traditional methods of evaluations.  Of course, there is a big difference (perhaps) between monetary incentive and the grade motivators that we dole out.  However, I wonder if the two are more alike for than we think considering the high stakes of achieving good grades in our society.  

Ariely, Dan. The upside of irrationality: the unexpected benefits of defying logic at work and at home. New York: Harper, 2010.

Sinek, Simon. Start with why: how great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York: Portfolio, 2009. 

Recently I presented a couple of addresses composed of three pieces.  The first was a meditation on the Biblical story of Esther.  I based this retelling on John Ortberg's speech called "A Leader's Greatest Fear".  Although it's about 45 minutes long, it is well worth a watch or a listen - it is very inciteful.  The point that John Ortberg makes well is that of Shadow Mission.  A Shadow Mission, he explains, is any mission that distracts us from our true and God-given mission.  He illustrates this by taking characters from the book of Esther and showing how they gave in to, or denied their Shadow Mission.  King Xerxes, he points out, was consumed by wealth and power; Haman by prestige and praise.  Esther, on the other hand, denied her Shadow Mission - her ability to live the good life, a life of security - in favour of taking up her mission to free the Jewish people from the bounty on their collective heads.  All this even though, as Mordechai says in Esther 4:14: "if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise form another place, but you and your father's family will perish.  And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?"       

The second piece that I drew on was based on Peter Block's "The Answer to How is Yes".  I spoke about how asking How? prior to Why? can paralyze us into thinking that the answer is somewhere 'out there' and not among us.  It is important that we define what we value before we decide how we're going to get there.  

Third, I presented a few highlights (and perhaps lowlights) from the Canadian Cardus Study.  My point in doing this was to ask the question 'what is it that we value'.  Implicit in this question is the belief that the results of the Cardus Study don't show us what the value of the Christian is, they either affirm or negate our value claims about Christian education.  If they affirm, fantastic.  If they don't, what do we do with the results?

I've shared my presentation below for information purposes.  It was a good presentation and though-provoking, both for myself and for those that I serve.  

In an earlier post, I wrote about Peter Block's "The Answer to How is Yes".  Towards the end of the book, he presents a picture of the leader as a Social Architect, which I think is worth an exploration here.  His leadership metaphor is one that I resonate with as I've done some writing about the philosophy of intersubjectivity and its role in the development of leaders.  You can find a copy of a paper I wrote on this topic here if you're even remotely interested. 

Before Block outlines his framework for the Social Architect leader, he juxtaposes his idea with the archetype of the leader as either an Engineer, an Economist, or an Artist.   It should be prefaced that Block doesn't claim these to be archetypes independent of each other or that all leadership styles fit within these categories.  Rather, he will eventually argue that in the Social Architect archetype the ideal leader is one where each of the following are integrated.  The first three archetypes: 

After giving a sketch of the first three, Block provides a snapshot of an archetype that he thinks integrates all three; the Architect.  The Architect, he says, "cares as much about the beauty of things as their more practical properties and how to make them work". (165)  This archetype is appropriate, he says, because the Architect must embody the roles of the Engineer, Economist, and Artist to be effective in his/her work.  However, because the Architect's role is not primarily in working with people, he suggests that the archetype be taken one step further which results in the Social Architect.  

The role of the Social Architect is "to design and bring into being organizations that serve both the marketplace and the soul of the people who work within them" (171)  Personally, I love the Social Architect metaphor because of the distinction that the leader has a dual role - both marketplace and employees.  While I think perhaps that both are essentially the same in that leaders serve people no matter whether they are customers or employees, I think that the idea that both matter is often missed in books about leadership.  Many leadership and management books in recent years tend to focus on the climate and culture that the leader must build within an organization with the implicit assumption that when such a climate or culture is created, customers will follow.  Or, books on marketing tend to deal primarily with customer service while ignoring the impact of employee-employer relations in fostering a good customer relations schema.  

Block's point comes back to his original assertion that the context is more important than the content - or more accurately, that the context must come before the content.  He says in this regard that "the social architect's task is to provide a context for the organization's purpose or strategy, and then engage others in a way that embodies those values in people's hearts." (175)  Although he is talking in this passage about creating 'space for what matters', I think that this encapsulates the enormous task of the leader: to engage in, and provide opportunities for meaning-making, instead of defining the meaning.  The danger that each of us in leadership positions faces is to take the easy-in-the-short-term road and mandate policies and procedures that define the vision and mission.  A colleague recently gave me the advice that I should "make the decision that will be easier in the long run".  Of course, this means that it will be harder in the immediate.  What Block is suggesting in his Social Architect framework will not be easier today, but I believe that the principles presented will help to foster a workplace that honours people, which is ultimately the task of employers and leaders in all varieties of organizations.  

Block, Peter. The answer to how is yes: acting on what matters. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2002.