Recently,
while finishing up delivering a talk in Silicon Valley, I found
myself struck by a deep sense of dread. I hadn't brought enough
copies of hand out materials for the unexpectedly large group. This
meant that at any moment a small mob of otherwise friendly people
might turn against me, driven to expressing mild rage from
a sense of unfairness. It was enough to put me on edge for some time
until I labeled what was going on.
Fairness
is the fifth and final domain of threat or reward I have written up
in a series of posts, the others
being Status, Certainty, Autonomy and Relatedness.
These five ideas together make up the 'SCARF'
model that
has become a popular way of thinking about what happens in
the brain during
social situations. In later posts I will go further into the
implications of the whole model, and how it relates to management,
creating change, bringing up kids and other issues.
The
fact that being treated unfairly can generate a strong threat
response is unlikely to be a surprise to anyone. However what may be
a surprise is that a sense of fairness can
also be rewarding, in and of itself,
and significantly so. Fairness, it turns out, is another primary
threat or reward: the experience activates the same
network that monitors real pain and pleasure.
Prime
your brain to look out for fairness issues and they start to appear
everywhere. Political clashes, both verbal and violent, tend to be
driven by fairness issues. I recently turned on the television to see
a villager in Africa shouting that she was willing to die to right
the injustice of an unfairly rigged election. Fairness-generated
emotions can run high in more mundane situations too: the feeling of
being "taken advantage of" by a taxi driver taking a longer
route can wreck an otherwise great day, despite the relatively
insignificant money involved. It's the principle that counts. The
legal system is deeply about fairness. Think of people who spend
enormous sums of money to "right wrongs" in
court, with no obvious economic win other than "justice".
(In the UK the department that looks after the courts is called the
‘Ministry of Justice'. It could be called the ‘Ministry of
Fairness' in some ways.) We crave fairness, and some people risk
their life savings and even their lives to get it.
Fairness
can be more rewarding than money
Golnaz Tabibnia, an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University, studies fairness and the way people make judgments about it. "The tendency to prefer equity and resist unfair outcomes is deeply rooted in people," Tabibnia explains. One of Tabibnia's studies, in collaborationwith Matt Lieberman, uses an exercise called the "Ultimatum Game." In the Ultimatum Game, there are two people, who receive a pot of money to split between themselves and the other person. One person makes a proposal and the other person has to decide whether to accept the proposal or not. If they don't accept the proposal, neither of them gets a reward. "'Inequity aversion' is so strong", Tabibnia explains, "that people are willing to sacrifice personal gain in order to prevent another person from receiving an inequitably better outcome."
Golnaz Tabibnia, an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University, studies fairness and the way people make judgments about it. "The tendency to prefer equity and resist unfair outcomes is deeply rooted in people," Tabibnia explains. One of Tabibnia's studies, in collaborationwith Matt Lieberman, uses an exercise called the "Ultimatum Game." In the Ultimatum Game, there are two people, who receive a pot of money to split between themselves and the other person. One person makes a proposal and the other person has to decide whether to accept the proposal or not. If they don't accept the proposal, neither of them gets a reward. "'Inequity aversion' is so strong", Tabibnia explains, "that people are willing to sacrifice personal gain in order to prevent another person from receiving an inequitably better outcome."
Surprisingly,
when people receive five dollars out of ten dollars, their reward
center lights up more than when they receive, say, five dollars out
of twenty. ‘In other words, the reward circuitry is activated more
when an offer is fair than when it's unfair, even when there is no
additional money to be gained,' Tabibnia explains. Fairness, it
seems, can be more
important than money.
Fairness
doesn't intuitively feel like it is of the same importance as say
food or sex.
Because of this, many people don't tend to value fairness highly
enough, and can be blindsided by the intensity of a fairness
response. This is another example of Maslow perhaps being wrong.
Society values survival needs such as food, well before social issues
like fairness. As a result, someone planning a day-long team meeting
might pay attention to ensuring everyone has a good lunch break, but
forget all about people's perception of fairness around how the day
is organized. More and more research points to the idea that
distractions from a sense of unfairness could be harder to handle
than an empty stomach.
Fair
play
Neuroscientist Stephen Pinker has a theory about where this intense response to fairness comes from, outlined in his book How the Mind Works. Pinker thinks that the fairness response has emerged as a by-product of the need to trade efficiently. In your evolutionary past, when you couldn't store food in the refrigerator, the best place to store resources would have been by giving "favors" to others. Resources were stored in other people's brains, as potential reciprocal snacks down the road. This mental exchange was especially important in hunter-gatherer days, when protein sources arrived intermittently: a bison felled by one person would be too much meat just for his family. To be good at this kind of trading you need the ability to detect "cheaters," people who promise but don't deliver. In this way, people with strong fairness-detectors would have evolutionary advantages.
Neuroscientist Stephen Pinker has a theory about where this intense response to fairness comes from, outlined in his book How the Mind Works. Pinker thinks that the fairness response has emerged as a by-product of the need to trade efficiently. In your evolutionary past, when you couldn't store food in the refrigerator, the best place to store resources would have been by giving "favors" to others. Resources were stored in other people's brains, as potential reciprocal snacks down the road. This mental exchange was especially important in hunter-gatherer days, when protein sources arrived intermittently: a bison felled by one person would be too much meat just for his family. To be good at this kind of trading you need the ability to detect "cheaters," people who promise but don't deliver. In this way, people with strong fairness-detectors would have evolutionary advantages.
These
days, with fridges and bank accounts, you don't need to trust other
people in such a primal way. Your fairness detecting circuits are
still there, but now they tend to get more of a work out in the form
of leisure activities, such as the game of "cheat" played
by kids, or Texas Hold-Em poker, played by millions of adults the
world over. These games provide an opportunity to flex your cheating
and cheater-detecting muscles. While fairness in real life can
generate a threat or a reward, detecting unfairness can be fun for
the whole family.
When
it's just not fair
Perceiving unfairness generates intense arousal of the limbic system, with all the attendant challenges this brings. As one example, because of the generalizing effect, accidental connections become easier: if you think one person is being unfair, everyone else may seem to be acting unfairly too. Many arguments between people, especially those close to us, involve incorrect perceptions of unfairness, triggering events that activate an even deeper sense of unfairness in all parties. This often starts by someone misreading one person's intent, being slightly mind-blind for a moment. The result can be an intense downward spiral, driven by accidental connections and one's expectations then altering perception.
Perceiving unfairness generates intense arousal of the limbic system, with all the attendant challenges this brings. As one example, because of the generalizing effect, accidental connections become easier: if you think one person is being unfair, everyone else may seem to be acting unfairly too. Many arguments between people, especially those close to us, involve incorrect perceptions of unfairness, triggering events that activate an even deeper sense of unfairness in all parties. This often starts by someone misreading one person's intent, being slightly mind-blind for a moment. The result can be an intense downward spiral, driven by accidental connections and one's expectations then altering perception.
Since
unfairness packs a hefty punch, it's easy to get upset by small
injustices when you're tired, or when your limbic system already has
a strong base load of arousal. One
study showed that
the amount of seratonin in the blood, which is involved in feeling
content, determined how people reacted to unfair situations. When you
feel low contentment, you can have a strong response to unfairness.
You have to be extra careful in these situations. If you are kept
awake by young children, it's easy to get cranky with a partner
asking you for help. If you've had a big day at the office, it's
easier to get unnecessarily annoyed with a supplier who you think
might be ripping you off, even though it might only be for pennies.
Fairness
comes up a lot when dealing with children. "Do as I say, not as
I do" is a statement parentswish
they could use, but kids are finely attuned to fairness from an early
age.
Photo by Koprol |
Justice
is it's own reward
On the plus side, fairness is hedonically rewarding, activating dopamine cells deep in the brain, like a good meal or an unexpected bonus at work. The feeling you get from a sense of fairness is one of connecting safely with others, so it's linked to relatedness. When you feel someone is being fair, there is a feeling of increased trust. Studies show that a self-rated sense of trust and cooperation increase when people experience fair offers. Oxytocin levels increase in fair exchanges too, and oxytocin increases levels of reported trust in people.
On the plus side, fairness is hedonically rewarding, activating dopamine cells deep in the brain, like a good meal or an unexpected bonus at work. The feeling you get from a sense of fairness is one of connecting safely with others, so it's linked to relatedness. When you feel someone is being fair, there is a feeling of increased trust. Studies show that a self-rated sense of trust and cooperation increase when people experience fair offers. Oxytocin levels increase in fair exchanges too, and oxytocin increases levels of reported trust in people.
When
you experience fairness, the increasing levels of dopamine and
oxytocin help generates an overall 'toward' emotional state. As a
result you become more open to new ideas and more
willing to connect with other people.
This is a great state for collaboration with
others. Yet so many structures inside organizations, especially large
organizations, work against employees feeling a sense of fairness.
Think of the all too common complaints about pay, performance, and
transparency. In the big downsizings of 2009, one firm's executives
agreed to a pay cut of 15%, making a big deal that this was three
times more than the 5% cut all staff were being asked to undergo, to
help reduce layoffs. While a 15% cut meant thousands of dollars a
year less pay for an executive, this didn't affect their bonuses,
which were worth millions of dollars. You can imagine how employees
felt about that when word got around.
One
interesting implication of fairness research is the idea that
workplaces that truly allow employees to experience an increasing
perception of fairness might be intrinsically rewarding. This may
explain why people perform better in certain workplace cultures.
I asked one executive I shared a can ride with why he had stayed at
the same company for 22 years. ‘I don't know' he replied. ‘I
guess it's because they always seem to do their best to do the right
thing by everyone'. Organizations trying to increase a sense of
engagement could do well to recognize that people experiencing a
sense of unfairness may get as upset (and therefore distracted). as
being told they wont get to eat for a day.
There
is research on corporate restructuring showing that when people
understood that downsizing decisions were made fairly, the impact of
the downsizing was dramatically less. On the other hand, people who
feel themselves to be treated unfairly by an organization can
generate no end of complaints. Living in a world that appears unfair
impacts people's cortisol levels, their well-being, and even their
longevity. No wonder so many people won't stay in corporate jobs when
they think that their company isn't doing the "fair thing"
for its workers, customers or for the community at large.
There
is one place you can go to experience a regular increase in the sense
of fairness, and that's to work for social-justice organizations that
distribute food to the poor or generally serve under-privileged
communities. When you right perceived wrongs, like people being
hungry when there's food being wasted two blocks away, you increase
your sense of fairness. Organizations that allow people to take time
on community projects are letting their employees feel rewarded by
increasing their sense of fairness.
In
summary, a sense of fairness is not just a nice to have if you want
to be able to think clearly, collaborate, learn or influence others.
Without a sense of fairness, people experience a degree of
distraction from a threat response, that inhibits their ability to
focus. Ignore fairness issues at your peril.
Source :
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar