One of my co-founders at Defy Expectations, Pat Chapman-Pincher, has written powerfully and succinctly in the last fortnight about bullying and disruption in the wake of coverage on Priti Patel and the departure of Dominic Cummings from No.10. Isn’t it interesting how behavioural issues seem to hit the political headlines with such force? Both apparently expressed frustration that the system is too slow to change. In business, such tensions bare themselves daily too – those wanting to disrupt, shake things up and create new ways of doing things (higher risk appetite) butt up against those more concerned with safety, precedent or data before action (lower risk appetite). Wasn’t it always thus? And why do we fear disruptors? Is it because they take risks and society teaches us when we’re young to see risk taking as negative? Do risk-takers become bullies if they don’t get their way? How do we get the best out of them and avoid the worst? Questions, questions…..

In a post-Covid world without familiar precedents, we need to reconcile the need to pivot quickly, make decisions bravely and keep businesses from excess risk, especially when balance sheets have been decimated. The trick is to make robust decisions that satisfy the disruptor and the protector.  

More interestingly still, what is it that drives disruptive or protective behaviour in people? What is going on in the systems of Priti Patel or Dominic Cummings that produce the headline-grabbing outbursts when they fail to control their impulses? Are they bullies or just committed cavaliers?

The science tells us risk-taking is associated with two major hormones, testosterone and cortisol, but for very different reasons. High testosterone is associated with risk taking due to its anabolic (strength building) qualities. Think of wolves or young lions tanked up on testosterone driven onwards to fight other males, winning and fighting again until they pick one fight too many. Cortisol on the other hand is catabolic, which means it breaks down glucose stores for immediate response to stress situations. Whilst in normal circulation it helps us regulate metabolism, excess cortisol has become associated with stress. Think of overworked NHS staff, Civil Servants, Government or business leaders having to make difficult decisions under immense stress. Associated with the drip feed of chronic stress is a drip feed of cortisol which over time wreaks havoc on the brain’s ability to make clear decisions free of bias, increasing risk inadvertently.

Sometimes, what’s claimed as bullying is actually the result of misaligned intentions and nobody being able to broker effectively between the disruptors and protectors. It can be subtle and hard to spot (finishing someone else’s sentences in a meeting, interrupting, assuming credit, contradicting unnecessarily) or more obvious (shouting, demeaning, insulting, demanding, ridiculing). The problem with it is that it creates the same response as it did when we were five years old navigating the school playground. As there is no analgesic for social pain, we remember the traumas and are repeatedly triggered as adults. The old saying “sticks and stones might break my bones but names will never hurt me” is wrong. The body produces natural painkillers (noradrenaline) to deal with physical pain but none for social pain, so the traumas can be triggered over and over again. That is the real cost of bullying, in any form.

The solutions to real bullying (which I define as malintent rather than clumsiness) are varied. Sanctions such as disciplinary processes are ineffective on seniors, especially if they are big contributors. Of more use is coaching to help them focus on channelling the good side of their intention (efficiency, more profit, cost reduction, etc) and recognise that bullying will probably produce the opposite as it shuts down the victim’s brain in a cocktail of adrenaline, hypervigilance and inability to think straight under threat.  

Risk-seeking behaviours from disruptors can be very useful to organisations but if left unchecked bullying may be one side effect if they don’t get their way. There is growing evidence from brain scanning that mindfulness training can down-regulate the dopamine (reward) systems that drive risk seeking and increase fold density in the brain to induce calmer states, particularly through controlling the production of cortisol. Sally Boyle, EMEA HR Head at Goldman Sachs, was quoted recently saying that we would view mindfulness training in the near future as we do exercise now. Other stress-induced regimes like physical training or thermal stress (such as the Nordic practice of sauna then snow bathing) can improve emotional stability and regulate these systems further to keep our disruptors engaged but ultimately harmless. Sufficient dopamine and noradrenaline will keep them motivated and alert, but enough also serotonin and oxytocin to ensure they remain mindfully calm, centred and aware of their actions and their impact on others. 

 Maintaining a balance between risk aversion and reward seeking is the target. Imagine a world where no international discussions, such as Brexit negotiations, could be had until participants’ brain chemistry profiles had been identified. Who is low on oxytocin (the love drug)? Not much chance of making progress towards any consensus there then… Who is creaking on cortisol? Is she just too uptight to listen? Are the Italians too tanked up with testosterone to see the risks in following the UK out of the door with their finances as they are? Such a possibility is not beyond the horizon. But what of commercial decision making and risk taking? “Neuroeconomics” or heuristics are buzz terms for the study of what goes on neurochemically to predispose individuals to certain risk and decision profiles. The problem is that all brains are different as they develop based on what life experiences they encounter.

 The “winner effect” experiments conducted by John Coates, a former Goldman FX trader and now a neuroscientist at Cambridge, have built on the tantalising prospect that in fact our adrenal glands register risk before our conscious minds do. This chimes with the fact that the wolf who recently won a fight is statistically likely to win the next one due to testosterone - induced increases in his oxygen carrying capacity and increased confidence and appetite for risk. Victory keeps raising testosterone levels until there is a tipping point: the animal picks one fight too many and its risky behaviour impairs its ability to survive. Traders exhibited the same behaviours in Coates’ study: on high testosterone days it became apparent traders sought higher risk/reward profiles until a trade went wrong and the P&L collapsed. Studies from China and Sweden suggest there are considerable hereditary elements to risk taking, so research is looking to link decision making profiles with genetic makeup. Applied neuroscience is the zeitgeist for leadership in so many ways which is why I study it, and provides a language and set of parameters through which to start getting a real fix on whole human systems at work. 

The science is clear. Risk is as innate as breath so don’t demonise or try to eliminate it, instead try to understand its value to your business because without it, little is accomplished and customers quickly become bored and move on. And internally, disruptors can leave a trail of relationship destruction in their wake. In practical terms, try to avoid becoming paralysed by consequences and potential mistakes. Remember that consistency is different from predictability. Follow good processes for decision making, including creative idea time for identifying risks, potential costs and anticipated mistakes, but don’t let that stop you involving those who have the ideas that could save you, especially now. 

As important as this all is to your own performance, it’s even more important to create good risk cultures for others. Here are 4 suggestions to help:  

 1.     Recognise the biology of risk taking: It is highly individualised and dependent on physical, mental, social and spiritual/value-driven factors. Putting the right people in risk jobs is one thing, supporting them whilst they’re there is quite another. Understand that whilst sometimes bullying is a disciplinary offence, other times what is claimed as bullying behaviour is simply well-intended energy that gets frustrated by nay-saying, the result of which can be spectacularly damaging on the atmosphere and cohesion of a team.

2.     Good cultures flow downwards from leadership: Cultivate conditions where disruptors and risk taking are nurtured. Set up idea clinics and other forums for thought generation and heavily involve your disruptors in them, helping them foster deeper relationships with key decision-makers. Train and incentivise your people in ways that discourage short termism and encourages better alignment with longer term goals. Embrace the friction disruptors and risk-takers bring. Alfred Sloan, who used to run GM in the 1930s, used to lament consensus amongst his Board, adjourning them until they had something useful to disagree about.

3.     Use good behavioural profiling tools:  These help identify and uncover people’s pre-conscious behavioural preferences. The modern neurosciences had shown that behaviour is driven more by environments and biochemistry than by innate models of personality (such as MBTI) which have a poor predictive factor.

4.     Get coaching support from those who understand the brain: Rare on the ground, there are coaches who work with businesses to develop good practice for identifying and optimising risk takers. At Defy Expectations we are integrating these into our cohort. Coaching can help individuals regulate energy into positive disruption and risk-taking, focus their attention on the pros and cons of testosterone-fuelled behaviour. It can also help leaders improve resilience and lower cortisol by designing physical and mental training regimes, and help develop recruitment strategies that better consider where and how risk takers should be employed and deployed.