The neuroscience of positive thinking

Why do negative comments and conversations
stick with us so much longer than positive
ones?
A critique from a boss, a disagreement with a
colleague, a fight with a friend – the sting from
any of these can make you forget a month’s
worth of praise or accord. If you’ve been called
lazy, careless, or a disappointment, you’re
likely to remember and internalize it. It’s
somehow easier to forget, or discount, all the
times people have said you’re talented or
conscientious or that you make them proud.
Chemistry plays a big role in this phenomenon.
When we face criticism, rejection or fear, when
we feel marginalized or minimized, our bodies
produce higher levels of cortisol, a hormone
that shuts down the thinking center of our
brains and activates conflict aversion and
protection behaviors. We become more reactive
and sensitive. We often perceive even greater
judgment and negativity than actually exists.
And these effects can last for 26 hours or
more, imprinting the interaction on our
memories and magnifying the impact it has on
our future behavior. Cortisol functions like a
sustained-release tablet – the more we
ruminate about our fear, the longer the impact.
Positive comments and conversations produce
a chemical reaction too. They spur the
production of oxytocin, a feel-good hormone
that elevates our ability to communicate,
collaborate and trust others by activating
networks in our prefrontal cortex. But oxytocin
metabolizes more quickly than cortisol, so its
effects are less dramatic and long-lasting.
This “chemistry of conversations” is why it’s
so critical for all of us –especially managers –
to be more mindful about our interactions.
Behaviors that increase cortisol levels reduce
what I call “Conversational Intelligence” or “C-
IQ,” or a person’s ability to connect and think
innovatively, empathetically, creatively and
strategically with others. Behaviors that spark
oxytocin, by contrast, raise C-IQ.
Over the past 30 years, I’ve helped leaders at
companies including Boehringer Ingelheim,
Clairol, Donna Karen, Exide Technologies,
Burberry, and Coach learn to boost performance
with better C-IQ. Recently, my consultancy, The
CreatingWE Institute , also partnered with Ryan
Smith, CEO of Qualtrics , the world’s largest
online survey software company, to analyze the
frequency of negative (cortisol-producing)
versus positive (oxytocin-producing)
interactions in today’s workplaces. We asked
managers how often they engaged in several
behaviors — some positive, and others negative
— on a scale of 0 through 5, in which 0 was
“never” and 5 was “always.”
The good news is that managers appear to be
using positive, oxytocin and C-IQ elevating
behaviors more often than negative behaviors.
Survey respondents said that they exhibited all
five positive behaviors, such as “showing
concern for others” more frequently than all five
negative ones, such as “pretending to be
listening.” However, most respondents –
approximately 85% — also admitted to
“sometimes” acting in ways that could derail
not only specific interactions but also future
relationships. And, unfortunately, when leaders
exhibit both types of behaviors it creates
dissonance or uncertainty in followers’ brains,
spurring cortisol production and reducing CI-Q.
Consider Rob, a senior executive from Verizon.
He thought of himself as a “best practices”
leader who told people what to do, set clear
goals, and challenged his team to produce high
quality results. But when one of his direct
reports had a minor heart attack, and three
others asked HR to move to be transferred off
his team, he realized there was a problem.
Observing Rob’s conversational patterns for a
few weeks, I saw clearly that the negative
(cortisol-producing) behaviors easily
outweighed the positive (oxytocin-producing)
behaviors. Instead of asking questions to
stimulate discussion, showing concern for
others, and painting a compelling picture of
shared success, his tendency was to tell and
sell his ideas, entering most discussions with a
fixed opinion, determined to convince others he
was right. He was not open to others’
influence; he failed to listen to connect.
When I explained this to Rob, and told him
about the chemical impact his behavior was
having on his employees, he vowed to change,
and it worked. A few weeks later, a member of
his team even asked me: “What did you give
my boss to drink?”
I’m not suggesting that you can’t ever demand
results or deliver difficult feedback. But it’s
important to do so in a way that is perceived
as inclusive and supportive, thereby limiting
cortisol production and hopefully stimulating
oxytocin instead. Be mindful of the behaviors
that open us up, and those that close us down,
in our relationships. Harness the chemistry of
conversations.