“How does a human make decisions?” In the search for an answer to this question, and in today's outdated leadership studies, there was a tendency to view humans as economic beings (homo economicus). In later years, through studies that led to two behavioral economists receiving the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, it was understood that humans are primarily psychological beings (homo psychologicus). In recent years, even a neuroquantum perspective has entered the realm of science. In today's world, where computer keys stand between patients and healthcare professionals, we know that some values are eroding. The most important of these values is “empathy,” or altruism, which we have forgotten to emphasize in our culture and belief system. This topic has only recently been discovered in management. According to the results of the “Empathy in Business Survey” published by Ernest & Young, 54% of participants cited their managers' lack of empathy as the reason for leaving their jobs.
Another important study is related to perception management. The study on the impact of empathy in the workplace was conducted by a group of academics from Harvard Business School and University College London in a completely different environment, a cafeteria. In this research, a different scenario pattern was applied. Four different scenarios were tested based on the idea of delicious food: “Cooks make tastier food when they can see their customers.” In the first scenario, customers and cooks did not see each other. In the second, customers saw the cooks, but the cooks did not see them. In the third scenario, the cooks saw the customers, but the customers did not see them. In the fourth scenario, both sides saw each other. The results revealed that when cooks saw their customers, they looked at them empathetically, and the food they cooked was tastier.
Another health study was presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in 2008. According to this research, in addition to the radiological outputs sent to the radiologist for report writing, a group of patient photos was also provided, and the expert was asked to consider these as well. In the other case, the expert only read the outputs and wrote their report. The researchers noted in the conclusion: “Our research demonstrates the importance of approaching the patient as a human being, not as a case with a hidden owner.” This situation shows us that the empathy experiment increased not only the quality of diagnoses but also their efficiency.
Empathy is a Brain Function
Every action and every behavior we undertake has a biochemical counterpart in the brain. The brain can be defined as the mediating organ of our psyche. In all the tasks we perform, while our body and organs are working, the brain also mediates. Being aware of this, our investments in the future will also have a biochemical counterpart in the brain. All the work and thoughts we have carried out, once referred to as 'subconscious' and now defined as 'implicit memory,' are archived in our brain, and we will use them in some way in the future.
The Difference Between Left, Right, and Frontal Brain Lobes
Using different regions of the brain holds an important place in leadership, just as it does in all areas of life. Our use of the left or right lobe of the brain leads to differences in our lives. Managers display behaviors that distinguish them from ordinary people by using different areas of the brain. For example, managers who primarily use the left lobe of the brain adhere to previously made decisions and implement them in the best possible way. Those who use the right lobe of the brain are managers with leadership qualities; they make decisions themselves and demand their implementation. Managers whose frontal lobe is more dominant than other sections organize and play a guiding role in decision-making. An empathetic leader can use both their thinking and feeling brain simultaneously.
Those Who Use Their Right Brain Have Leadership Qualities, But…
Managers who primarily use the left lobe of the brain tend to adapt people they work with to the situation. They do not want to take risks and are in favor of maintaining the existing status quo. They limit the people working with them by saying, “It is enough for you to do the tasks assigned to you.” Those who use the right lobe of the brain, on the other hand, motivate their employees and stir them into action. This is a characteristic of leadership. However, this behavior, which initially brings people together, cannot be successful in the long run. When we look at societies, we see that leaders who initiate revolutions are those who use the right lobe of the brain. But it is those whose frontal brain is active who carry the leader's step forward. Those who use their frontal brain motivate their companions and energize them. They mobilize other people and motivate themselves. The energy of environments where people use their frontal brain increases. Nothing is done for the moment; there is a continuous flow.
Praise, Boast, Lament
Those who use different lobes of the brain also exhibit different tendencies in terms of their reactions. For example, people who use the left brain lobe very often use the word “I wish”; in short, they tend to lament. Those who use their right brain, due to their leadership quality, prefer to boast about themselves and their achievements. They like not only to praise themselves but also to be praised. Those who act with their frontal brain, however, praise others, not themselves. They applaud the people around them, praise correctly performed behaviors, and make everyone feel good. These people succeed in putting their egos in the background.
Common Sense and the Role of Emotions in Decision Making
Before reaching a judgment on a matter, whether we are aware of it or not, we first consult our reason, and then act according to the judgment given by our inner voice. In short, we make judgments with the help of common sense, which we can call “knowing from within.” Ordinary people do not attach much importance to acting with good sense. However, it is necessary and beneficial for people with leadership qualities and responsibilities to act with such sensitivity. For a person to display accurate common sense, they must have a mental infrastructure where they can cultivate their intuitions and a knowledge base where they can develop themselves. Just as it doesn't rain in deserts because there are no trees, those without mental accumulation will not have sufficient emotional accumulation. The common sense of these individuals is not clear.
Pride and Criticism in Leadership
Arrogant people are intolerant of criticism. Such people are overly sensitive and may interpret criticism as humiliation. They neither forgive nor forget those who criticize them. They do not keep those who make the 'mistake' of criticizing them near. Such overly proud leaders prefer to be close to people who constantly applaud them. High ego or megalomania is a problem more often experienced by leaders. Leaders who know that criticism is not directed at humiliating them and are open to it can truly be democratic. A leader who says “I am democratic” but is closed to criticism is, in reality, democratic only for themselves.
The Importance of Leaders in Establishing Values
In Eastern societies, loyalty to the leader is an important characteristic. Societies progress with a leader who is a good role model and regress when they encounter a bad leader model. The leadership of leaders who prioritize the needs of the people over their own interests, exhibit exemplary behavior, keep their promises, perform praiseworthy actions, and have an untainted heart is easily adopted by the general public.
The author of The Prince, Machiavelli, was objected to, with people saying, “You are teaching tyrants the way to power.” His response was: “But in my book, I also wrote the way to get rid of them.” Machiavelli's suggestion for liberation from tyrants is actually a well-known path; it is quite difficult, full of obstacles, but solid. This is the path of becoming a “virtuous warrior.” Those who choose the shortcut may side with tyrants and oppressors; but those who prefer long-term success, who want to be spoken of well behind their backs, and who want “was a good person” written on their tombstones, must act principled.
If a leader stands by the oppressed, they have been remembered fondly throughout history. The most common problem faced by leaders who guide society and whose words people take as examples, despite correctly conveying virtues to their followers, is their failure to act in accordance with these values in their private lives. A person who exalts a value must also strive to live by it. A person whose words do not match their actions lacks credibility. The virtues we express to embrace cannot sustain their existence on paper; they can only be brought to life by living them. We can introduce virtues into our lives not with our words, but with our actions.
The Common Point of Leaders, Explorers, and Inventors
Leaders instill hope in people. Therefore, pessimistic people generally cannot be good leaders. Those with true leadership qualities are individuals who can create positive expectations with the projects they produce, even in the worst and most difficult situations. Another group that possesses this characteristic is explorers and inventors. For example, Edison… At 67 years old, the workshop where he dedicated his life and all his work burned down. Edison said to his son Charlie, “Call your mother; she should watch the fire with us.” Then, in the morning, he gathered his entire family and, while having breakfast, said: “All our mistakes have burned down right now.” Despite his advanced age, Edison lost none of his determination, and about three weeks after the fire, he invented the “phonograph,” which formed the basis of the sound recording system. Edison's invention is a meaningful example showing the role of hope in human life. For a person who lost all their life's work in a fire to combine their old knowledge and create a new invention is actually a dream. What is expected from an elderly person is to say, “If so, I'll settle in a coastal town from now on and spend my remaining time fishing.” But Edison combined his dreams with hope and achieved his goal.
Another event demonstrating the importance of hope is wars. A commander who does not lose hope gains victory. A commander who thinks they can be defeated in war, even with one in a thousand chance, will be defeated. A commander who does not consider losing as an option in war can fight. In short, hope is one of the emotions that are the key to all kinds of success in people's lives.
Leadership is 3 Types, Intelligence is 5…
Leadership can be divided into 3 basic types: classic, charismatic, and scientific. Leaders of these three types exhibit different approaches in a wide variety of subjects such as reward-punishment management, crisis management, motivation, initiative, idea generation, benefiting from experience, relationship with bureaucracy, communication method, way of doing business, problem-solving method, and planning ability.
For example, how does a leader who rewards or punishes someone behave? Charismatic leaders are overly sensitive to wrongdoings. They make quick decisions and act on their instincts. Classic leaders perform their duties in the best possible way but do not take an extra step. Charismatic leaders, on the other hand, do not shy away from risk, and sometimes even go to extremes; they apply a reward-punishment system. In scientific leaders, the priority is rewarding, and punishment is an exception.
From a neuroleadership perspective, there are 5 basic types of intelligence: logical, emotional, bodily-kinesthetic, conscientious, and social intelligence. Those with logical intelligence; act idealistically. Those with emotional intelligence; foresee being an activist. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence; emphasizes being within work discipline and being realistic. Those with conscientious intelligence; listen to their inner voices, act with inner responsibility and accountability, possess ethical values, and benefit from morality and reasoning. They respect wisdom, are humble, and are open to cooperation thanks to social intelligence. Studies show that, for example, Hitler had high logical, emotional, bodily-kinesthetic, and social intelligence, but very low conscientious intelligence.
Leaders Must Possess Conscientious Intelligence
Hitler, who won military victories and politically secured Germany's support, also caused the death of millions of people. It might not be appropriate to cite such a person as an example when talking about leadership. It is clear that Hitler's leadership was not true leadership. Success is not the only criterion when it comes to leadership. As a soldier who won wars, a talented painter, a self-disciplined person, Hitler mobilized the masses with his leadership model, but he annihilated everyone who opposed him. From a political and social intelligence perspective, he might have been a genius, but his conscientious intelligence was in the gutter. He killed millions of people, including Jews, on the pretext that they were an inferior race. Tyrants like Hitler are considered heroes when they succeed. But success cannot be the sole criterion for being a leader. There must be other criteria. The leadership of an oppressor is not true leadership. Leaders must also possess conscientious intelligence.
For example, Albert Einstein was a genius, an excellent scientist, and had received the Nobel Prize in Physics. But he was not a good leader. His intelligence was very high, but he had problems in his marriage. His IQ was high, but his EQ, or emotional intelligence, was, so to speak, in the gutter. Being a good scientist does not mean he will be a leader in every field. Just as Einstein could not provide good leadership to his family.
Different Leadership Types Approach Bureaucracy Differently
Leadership typologies establish different relationships with bureaucracy. A classic leader; establishes a good system, builds bureaucracy, and does not push themselves. They do not go beyond boundaries, perform their duties as they should, and hesitate to back down. In a way, what a Classic leader does is sheep herding. That is, they love herds, herd mentality, and obedience. Many of those currently in bureaucracy are classic leaders; those who hesitate to undertake new tasks, avoid risks, and fall into the error of doing nothing for fear of making mistakes…
Charismatic leaders, unlike classic leaders, crush bureaucracy; they can push bureaucracy aside in matters they believe to be right. They hesitate to back down. They are leaders who can take risks for the future of the flock if necessary.
Scientific leadership, on the other hand, operates with the rule, “You can force a person to do something, but you cannot force them to believe.” It does not hesitate to back down and does not see bureaucracy as an obstacle; instead, it generates options to persuade it. Scientific leaders act like goose herders; they give their employees freedom but also monitor all their moves. In this way, they detect crises before they occur and guide the people they work with by persuading them.
Small Victories Lose Their Importance Without a Strategy
Leadership typologies also differ in their communication methods. Those with classic leadership qualities build good relationships with the people they work with, avoid risk, and accept not growing to avoid making mistakes. Those with charismatic leadership qualities love the people they work with and build good relationships with them, desire to fight, grow quickly, and their losses are also great. For such leaders, their own emotions come first. They are like footballers who say, “Let the ball always be at my feet.” They always want to play in midfield. Those with scientific leadership qualities, on the other hand, value both their own emotions and those of others, build good relationships with the people they work with, and also love them. They value the emotions of others as much as their own. Individuals with scientific leadership qualities make moves by thinking 8 steps ahead. Strategic thinking underlies scientific leadership. Because if you don't have a strategy, the small victories and small successes you achieve are meaningless; you lose the war. Scientific leaders think big and take strategic steps. They are visionary. Charismatic leaders have more mission than vision; they do whatever the task is.
Trust is Essential in Positive Leadership
Trust is central to the leadership circle. Imagine the wheels of a car. Just as the axle and hub are central, trust is the axle in the leadership circle. The most dominant quality of a leader is trustworthiness. The consistency of their decisions, having experience, principles, and values… These are important, but fundamentally, they all rely on trust. In scientific or positive leadership, trust is essential, and doubt is an exception.
In a study conducted on 54,000 people in 2009, participants were asked: “How would you like your leader or manager to be?” The most common answer was “they must be trustworthy and honest.” Subsequent answers included: “They should be people-oriented” and “they should be open to communication.” This research also shows that people want their leaders to have an open, transparent, and honest perspective. At the center of the leadership circle is trust, and around it are competence, values, and social intelligence. We know that love, fear, and trust move in an interconnected way: when love increases, trust increases; there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two. When love decreases, fear increases; when fear increases, trust weakens.
Success is Not Possible with Negative Leadership
In the era we live in, leadership style has also changed. Today, success is not possible with negative leadership. In olden times, there was a leadership approach that instilled fear to achieve definite results. Leaders who behaved this way could not even go out into the street when they lost their power. There have been examples of this in history: Napoleon and Hitler were such negative leaders. They ruled by instilling fear. Positive leadership is challenging. Positive leadership requires patience and discovering the positive aspects of those around you.
Today is the Age of Team Genius, Not Individual Genius
We must know that neuroleadership is an area related to human decision-making processes. So much so that someone who cannot lead themselves cannot lead others. MRI research on the brain shows us that the brain is not a silent organ. Our brain is actually an organ that mediates our behaviors. Our brain also moves with us, and this is closely related to our mental health. Research on the brain under stress reveals that hormones released under these conditions help recall recent information and positively affect memory stores. According to these studies, anxiety caused by a certain level of stress is beneficial for learning. In other words, uncontrolled, excessive stress is harmful, but a small amount of stress is beneficial. An important characteristic of leadership is the ability to manage stress. Zero stress is close to death, to absence; but controllable stress leads a person to their goal and success. Controlled and a small amount of anxiety guides us to learn.
The 21st Century Has Changed the Concept of Leadership
Today, leadership must also include 21st-century skills. Because 21st-century skills have changed the content of the leadership concept. One of these is the ability to work in a team. This concept is very important today. We live in an age of team genius, not individual genius. To be a team leader, the ability to empathize needs to be developed. The scientific method for this is emotional intelligence training.
In summary, leadership begins in the family. A person who can lead in the family and exhibits leadership qualities at home can also be a leader in the workplace. One must begin leadership with oneself. First, one can manage oneself, then one's family, and then those in the workplace. This is an unchangeable rule in every field, be it in family, economy, politics, or health.