Underground vs. Commercial Rappers free essay sample

Nevertheless Imaginations tree trunk they are trying to refurbish hip hop and shift it towards mainstream as it once was. Which if you were to ask my opinion, exactly what the industry needs. The talented mainstream artists Is varied apparently, but Its the lyrical content that Is missing. Thats why a majority would say the underground is a better field. When we grow a bore of the same things we hear on the radio they look for more resources. I reflect back to listening to the radio shows Id wake up to, and got hooked to it. Now kids find the new they want and placeIt on their Pod, and they find out that at times the underground has better music. Some people would say they dont like rap music period. Others who argue that they dont like either the commercial artist or underground artist. The first thing I ask when I hear either argument is why? The most common answer I hear Is its horrible! However anyone who says rap is horrible has only heard the horrible music they over play on the radio and MAT. We will write a custom essay sample on Underground vs. Commercial Rappers or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page If you ever heard anyone rap that actually has lyrical skills, you quickly begin to see the poetry behind us not that Im not a fan of any of the famous rappers like Ill Wayne, T. Gucci Mane, Notorious 8. 1. G, Outpace, etc. Its simply because I relate, and tend to show respect to those that rap about other issues other than what sells. Id rather listen to things that are more realistic. The theory of selling out is farfetched from where I think the underground music affiliation is at this phase. Before the internet, artists were selling music at an all time high. The problem of music indefinite Is something that has no value to most and Is non consumable.The ideal of selling out hasnt ran across my mind after all these years, because I Just dont know if thats a possibility. Changing your music for whatever purpose being money or fame is up to you. Now and days, an artist can hardly live off of their music unless they tour endlessly, along many other situations. How can some participate when they have a Job they have a dedication to? I have no idea. I think it is a dated notion with the way things are conducted today and becoming more impossible in the industrial scene seeing as we have never been that commercially feasible since the ass anyway.I have made observed, and made my decision of the underground Industry throughout a time frame of about 7 years (not long yet enough) and Im aware that there are plenty of individuals that have become more appreciative when it come to the types of Hip Hop and music in I OFF underground music. I have to agree that some people become ignorant to one or the other. However, it is not Just in underground or commercial, but in all aspects of music period. My perception on commercial vs.. Underground is that each genre has its own purpose in the music industry.What set apart besides from style (instrumentals, delivery, etc. ) is the lyrics. Most often, lyrics meaning goes past a shallow phase in underground and is more attractive to me when artists connect personally with their content and is not spruced up to fit any artist. But when its all said and done, I enjoy a mix of music whether it is mainstream or underground. I have been an underground (independent artist, signed to small independent labels or no label at all) artist since the sass, when my oldest brother introduced me to rap music. I am a supporter of the underground hip-hop movement.Being an aspiring artist, to tell the truth, their vocabulary and topics are well thought about, felt, and delivered than commercial artist. Where in the world are you going to get instituting dexterity in any other music? Gucci Mane is one of the most common underground artist out now. He has made a three sixty from an underground to commercial artist. Some of his first reviews people would say his rap music is bad, and hypocritical. Now that hes a commercial artist you hear how he raps about how hard life is, yet he lives in a fifty million dollar home. His music doesnt have any flow or real structure. Real music takes talent and anyone can rhyme to a beat. Ask yourself, is only fulfilling advertisement in his contract? The point is, if you arent made for it, you probably will not have an opportunity to o commercial. Back when Outpace and Biggie where both commercial artist, they also had respect, Back then a guy from New Jersey ardently defended Naughty by Nature, because he didnt like Trench, so I think some commercial artists still do have street credibility, depending on how commercial they are.On the opposing hand, accent diluted his material for the mainstream. Commercial rap is not the problem, Just a helping hand. The problem is the industry; it is because the industry that someone like Aims can drop a rhetorical rhyme about being hot and then telling us to move speaking of the rapture like Anita Baker, such garbage. The same industry that buries artist leaving them stuck putting out mix tapes because they wont play nice and conform with the game. Some artist may have ticked off some executives and other artist they were behind.Whats crazy about our music today is that its sort of hard to distinguish the quality. Besides, when compared to what the charts use to consist of Just two or so years back, its hard to see the things that are accepted as top forty or the genre is horrible. Yet, when you conceder this generation as one with what was, there is a great difference. However lets say the President passed a music care, and we had to make an option of one generation of music sound to start today with and take off from there.What choice would you make, to discontinue all of todays music sounds and try it all over with the asss or even asss sound, or would you choose to not bother with it at all and Just let things continue as is? Which generation would you choose to represent what was once done, or would we rather see how the current unravels? I say its complex to decide what is horrible. I wouldnt choose to turn my back on todays sound and go back to those days of music, in spite of the fact thats where some of the best sound of our time is.If the president were to cancel out all the commercial trends and make the underground sound the new commercial trend, can it still be considered as good as it was when it was underground? A big issue overlooked, is a problem with the commercial rappers is once theyve gone commercial, many of them lose the hunger and fight which allowed them to ascend to such a level in the fist place. Also the corporate influence allowed many of them to take their art to a different direction compromising their integrity for a few extra sales. Perception and personal stances on music definitely factor in a major ways.

How to Answer “Can I Contact Your Current Employer”

How to Answer â€Å"Can I Contact Your Current Employer† If anyone asks where you were today, you were at a dentist’s appointment. Right? The vague â€Å"appointment,† always in the middle of the day, is a classic tactic for interviewing for new jobs while you’re still at your current one. You just put up your â€Å"out of office† message and hope no one notices that you’re awfully dressed up for a Wednesday. However, your slick cover story could be blown if the interviewing company contacts your current one. How does one avoid this potential explosion of awkwardness?Look, everyone understands that the sneaky interview is kind of the dirty little secret of the working world. Everyone does it at some point, in hopes of trading up their current position, or pursuing a new opportunity. That doesn’t mean you want your intentions broadcast across your current company- especially if you don’t get the new gig. Ideally, the interviewer will accept your list of non-current-boss references without que stion. But there’s a chance he or she might ask you the dreaded question: â€Å"Hey, do you mind if I contact your current employer?†DO understand that they’re not trying to double-cross you.No one is snitching†¦the person interviewing you merely wants to get a sense of what you’re like as a current employee. He or she knows it’s awkward, but it’s a valid question. After all, your current boss might know you’re interviewing for a variety of reasons (like your job is ending due to a layoff, your job is temporary, etc.)- so it certainly can’t hurt to ask.DON’T panic, and assume that everyone will soon know about your secret interview.It’s definitely okay to say that you’d like to keep your job search under wraps for now.DO have some current colleagues in mind that you could include as a reference.If you have a trusted coworker who has a clear sense of your abilities as an employee, but who can also be tr usted with a secret (and who has been told ahead of time that you’re on the hunt), then offer them as an alternative reference. That way, you can say to the interviewer that you’re not comfortable if she talks to your current boss yet, but that you have another reference at your current company whom she could talk to in the meantime.DON’T act cagey, like you have something to hide.Be up-front that you’re not comfortable offering up your current boss as a reference at this time. Emphasize that your available references are well aware of your abilities as an employee, and let the interviewer know that they’re happy to talk to him or her in the meantime.DO leave the door open for the future.After you say that you’re not comfortable with the interviewer talking with your current manager, make sure they know that it’s not a final â€Å"no.† Let him or her know that when the timing is right, you’d be open to them contacting yo ur current company.If all goes well, you can sneak back into your office with a spring in your step, and secure in the knowledge that your secret is safe for now.

Biography of John Hancock, Founding Father

Biography of John Hancock, Founding Father John Hancock (January 23, 1737–October 8, 1793) is one of America’s best-known founding fathers thanks to his unusually oversized signature on the Declaration of Independence. However, before he autographed one of the nation’s most important documents, he made a name for himself as a wealthy merchant and prominent politician. Fast Facts: John Hancock Known for: Founding father with a prominent signature on the Declaration of IndependenceOccupation: Merchant and politician (president of the Second Continental Congress and governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts)Born: January 23, 1737 in Braintree, MADied: October 8, 1793 in Boston, MAParents: Col. John Hancock Jr. and Mary Hawke ThaxterSpouse: Dorothy QuincyChildren: Lydia and John George Washington Early Years John Hancock III was born in Braintree, Massachusetts, near Quincy, on January 23, 1737. He was the son of Rev. Col. John Hancock Jr., a soldier and clergyman, and Mary Hawke Thaxter. John had all the advantages of a life of privilege, by virtue of both money and lineage. When John was seven years old, his father died, and he was sent to Boston to live with his uncle, Thomas Hancock. Thomas occasionally worked as a smuggler, but over the years, he built up a successful and legitimate mercantile trading operation. He had established profitable contracts with the British government, and when John came to live with him, Thomas was one of the richest men in Boston. John Hancock spent much of his youth learning the family business, and eventually enrolled in Harvard College. Once he graduated, he went to work for Thomas. The firm’s profits, particularly during the French and Indian War, allowed John to live comfortably, and he developed a fondness for finely tailored clothes. For a few years, John lived in London, serving as a company representative, but he returned to the colonies in 1761 because of Thomas’ failing health. When Thomas died childless in 1764, he left his entire fortune to John, making him one of the richest men in the colonies overnight. Political Tensions Grow During the 1760s, Britain was in significant debt. The empire had just emerged from the Seven Years War, and needed to increase revenue quickly. As a result, a series of taxation acts were levied against the colonies. The Sugar Act of 1763 sparked anger in Boston, and men like Samuel Adams became outspoken critics of the legislation. Adams and others argued that only colonial assemblies had the authority to levy taxes upon the North American colonies; because the colonies had no representation in Parliament, Adams said, that governing body wasnt entitled to tax colonists. In early 1765, Hancock was elected to the Boston Board of Selectmen, the city’s governing body. Just a few months later, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which levied a tax upon any sort of legal document- wills, property deeds, and more- leading to enraged colonists rioting in the streets. Hancock disagreed with Parliament’s actions, but initially believed that the right thing for colonists to do was pay taxes as ordered. Eventually, however, he took a less moderate position, openly disagreeing with taxation laws. He participated in a vocal and public boycott of British imports, and when the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766, Hancock was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Samuel Adams, the leader of Boston’s Whig party, lent his support to Hancock’s political career, and served as a mentor as Hancock rose in popularity. An illustration depicting a group of rioting colonists protesting against the Stamp Act. MPI / Getty Images In 1767, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts, a series of tax laws that regulated customs and imports. Once again, Hancock and Adams called for a boycott of British goods into the colonies, and this time, the Customs Board decided that Hancock had become a problem. In April 1768, Customs agents boarded one of Hancock’s merchant ships, the Lydia, in Boston Harbor. Upon discovering they had no warrant to search the hold, Hancock refused to give the agents access to the cargo area of the ship. The Customs Board filed charges against him, but the Massachusetts Attorney General dismissed the case, as no laws had been broken. A month later, the Customs Board targeted Hancock again; it is possible they believed he was smuggling, but it is also possible that he was singled out for his political stances. Hancock’s sloop Liberty arrived in port, and when customs officials inspected the hold the next day, found it was carrying Madeira wine. However, the stores were only at one-fourth of the ship’s capacity, and agents concluded that Hancock must have offloaded the bulk of the cargo during the night in order to avoid paying import taxes. In June, the Customs Board seized the ship, which led to a riot on the docks. Historians have differing opinions on whether Hancock was smuggling or not, but most are in agreement that his actions of resistance helped spark the flames of revolution. In 1770, five people were killed during the Boston Massacre, and Hancock led a call for the removal of British troops from the city. He told Governor Thomas Hutchinson that thousands of civilian militia were waiting to storm Boston if soldiers were not removed from their quarters, and although it was a bluff, Hutchinson agreed to remove his regiments to the outskirts of town. Hancock was given credit for the withdrawal of the British. Over the next few years, he remained active and outspoken in Massachusetts politics, and stood up against further British taxation laws, including the Tea Act, which led to the Boston Tea Party. Hancock and the Declaration of Independence In December 1774, Hancock was elected as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia; around the same time, he was elected as president of the Provincial Congress. Hancock held significant political influence, and it was only because of Paul Revere’s heroic midnight ride that Hancock and Samuel Adams were not arrested before the battle of Lexington and Concord. Hancock served in Congress during the early years of the American Revolution, regularly writing to General George Washington and relaying requests for supplies to colonial officials. Despite his undoubtedly hectic political life, in 1775 Hancock took the time to get married. His new wife, Dorothy Quincy, was the daughter of prominent justice Edmund Quincy of Braintree. John and Dorothy had two children, but both children died young: their daughter Lydia passed away when she was ten months old, and their son John George Washington Hancock drowned at just eight years of age. Hancock was present when the Declaration of Independence was drafted and adopted. Although popular mythology has it that he signed his name largely and with flourish so King George could read it easily, there is no evidence that this is the case; the story likely originated years later. Other documents signed by Hancock indicate that his signature was consistently large. The reason his name appears at the top of the signatories is because he was president of the Continental Congress and signed first. Regardless, his iconic handwriting has become part of the American cultural lexicon. In common parlance, the phrase â€Å"John Hancock† is synonymous with â€Å"signature.† Fuse / Getty Images The official signed version of the Declaration of Independence, called the engrossed copy, wasn’t produced until after July 4, 1776, and was actually signed at the beginning of August. In fact, Congress kept the names of the signers secret for a while, as Hancock and the others risked being charged with treason if their role in the creation of the document was revealed. Later Life and Death In 1777, Hancock returned to Boston, and was re-elected to the House of Representatives. He spent years rebuilding his finances, which had suffered at the outbreak of the war, and continued working as a philanthropist. A year later, he led men into combat for the first time; as the senior major general of the state militia, he and several thousand troops joined General John Sullivan in an attack on a British garrison at Newport. Unfortunately, it was a disaster, and it was the end of Hancock’s military career. However, his popularity never dwindled, and in 1780 Hancock was elected governor of Massachusetts. Hancock was re-elected annually to the role of governor for the rest of his life. In 1789, he considered a run for the first president of the United States, but that honor ultimately fell to George Washington; Hancock received only four electoral votes in the election. His health was in decline, and on October 8, 1793, he passed away at Hancock Manor in Boston. Legacy After his death, Hancock largely faded from popular memory. This is in part due to the fact that unlike many of the other founding fathers, he left very few writings behind, and his house on Beacon Hill was torn down in 1863. It wasn’t until the 1970s that scholars began seriously investigating Hancock’s life, merits, and accomplishments. Today, numerous landmarks have been named after John Hancock, including the U.S. Navys USS Hancock as well as John Hancock University. Sources History.com, AE Television Networks, www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/john-hancock.â€Å"John Hancock Biography.† John Hancock, 1 Dec. 2012, www.john-hancock-heritage.com/biography-life/.Tyler, John W. Smugglers Patriots: Boston Merchants and the Advent of the American Revolution. Northeastern University Press, 1986.Unger, Harlow G. John Hancock: Merchant King and American Patriot. Castle Books, 2005.

SWOT Analysis Case Study HCA Hospital Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

SWOT Analysis HCA Hospital - Case Study Example This is strength to the hospital as it enables it to receive favorable interest rates from the bond market (Carmelo, 2013). With favorable interests from bonds, the hospital can be able to issue the new proposed bond of $80 million easily to refinance the previous bond and get the extra $10 million to purchase and update its medical equipment. Another of the hospital is that, the hospital has a large measure of stability even during hard times, hence gaining credibility to its management team by the rating agencies. This then is another reason that makes the hospital’s bonds to receive favorable interests in the market, hence can be reissued for better interests to settle the outstanding bonds and the balance be used to buy medical equipment required to update the hospital’s equipment standard. The hospital faces serious financial problems that it needs to update its technology in order to deliver quality services to the patients especially at the diagnostic and surgical departments. Given that the hospital is a non-profit making, it tends to collect less funds that may not be able to be enough for such equipment and the running of the hospital at large. The fact that the hospital is located in a metropolitan area is a strategic opportunity to enable it receive and serve as many people as possible in order to make it achieve its core goals and objectives. Being that many area residents do not have healthcare coverage and do not qualify for the Medicaid program, the hospital then exploits this opportunity to provide services to this classes of people in order to meet its mission of free medical services and non-profit making. The hospital, however, is faced with a threat of the high healthcare costs that has been contributed to by a nationwide shortage of nurses as well as family practice doctors. This is a threat in that, the hospital in its endeavors must be facing hard time to hire both doctors and

Cultural Advertising (how culture influences advertising) Research Paper

Cultural Advertising (how culture influences advertising) - Research Paper Example The culture of most individuals is determined at their place of birth whereby they pick up the behaviors and mannerisms of those around them. This influences their general outlook towards life and the way in which they perform certain actions in their day to day activities. Culture differs in various elements; the most common is due to the location. Individuals in various continents have various distinct differences and these can be easily noticed. A clear example is the popularity of sports in various continents. In the United States, the most popular sports are American Football and Baseball, in India, the most popular sport is cricket while in Europe soccer is the major attraction. This therefore means that children born in these regions will find that their sporting culture is inclined to these particular sports and therefore they are most likely to follow these sports. The environment we are in is a major determinant of the culture that we will adopt. Culture influences the languages that we speak and the religious beliefs that we are subscribed to. There is therefore a direct impact on the products that any given individual will use by the culture in which they belong. Some religious sects restrict the use of modern technology by their members and as such it would be pointless to try and them electronic. This therefore implies that advertisers should take keen note of the various cultures around the world so that they know exactly which type of people use certain products. They can then target these people selectively with advertisements that cater to their exact needs. The end result is that there will be positive response from the market since their needs will be catered for (Mueller 2004). The goal of this essay is to find out how the advertisements differ from each other on basis of cultural values, are there any similarities also between TV

Persecution :: essays research papers

The Growing Effects of Persecution   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Throughout the ages of Christianity, there have been many drawbacks to this cause. Many leaders among the Christian community were persecuted due to the disbelief of Christ being the Messiah among pagan worshipers, heathens, and even other credible religious leaders. This persecution more often led to death, or other horrifying results. But no matter what horrendous effects, there was always a brighter side causing the Christian faith to grow even stronger.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Because of Rome’s strictness in following the laws and rules, they were very tradition bound. Many of the Pharisees were determined that the Old Testament was the only acceptable basis of religious law that the people of Rome should follow. The believed that Elijah was the Messiah, and they were waiting for his return. They also didn’t expect a â€Å"Messiah† to act the way that Christ did, having anything to do with sinners was looked down upon. However, after Christ’s death and resurrection, the disciples were told to go out into the world and spread the good news of their salvation. This didn’t appeal to the Pharisees at all, and they immediately set out to stop this message of freedom. The religious officials continuously put Simon and Peter in jail, Stephen was stoned to death, and there have been accounts of John’s attempted murder in boiling hot oil. Many Christians were flogged, stoned to death, skinned alive, fed to lions, and many more gruesome things. Nero burned half of Rome and then blamed the Christians, he even dipped some in kerosene and then lit them on fire so that there was light for the sporting events. Peter was even crucified, but he didn’t feel he deserved to die the same way as Christ so he was crucified upside-down. Persecution was so bad that Christians were accused of having a â€Å"hatred for the human race,† cannibalism, and incest.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The response of the Christians has a lot to do with the influence upon the church. The Bible states in the book of Acts that after being beat by the Roman officials, Peter and James went out celebrating that they had been punished for spreading the news of Christ. After this event, and several escapes from prison due to divine intervention, Peter and the other Apostles were able to bring salvation unto many people. These events helped make the church what it is today. The church at this point in time was growing because of the faith that two groups of people displayed.

Managing with the Brain in Mind

strategy+business Managing with the Brain in Mind by David Rock from strategy+business issue 56, Autumn 2009 reprint number 09206 Reprint features special report 1 by David Rock Naomi Eisenberger, a leading social neuroscience Managing with the Brain in Mind researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), wanted to understand what goes on in the brain when people feel rejected by others. She designed an experiment in which volunteers played a computer game called Cyberball while having their brains scanned by a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine. Cyberball hearkens back to the nastiness of the chool playground. â€Å"People thought they were playing a ball-tossing game over the Internet with two other people,† Eisenberger explains. â€Å"They could see an avatar that represented themselves, and avatars [ostensibly] for two other people. Then, about halfway through this game of catch among the three of them, the subjects stopped receiving th e ball and the two other supposed players threw the ball only to each other. † Even after they learned that no other human players were involved, the game players spoke of feeling angry, snubbed, or judged, as if the other avatars excluded them because they didn’t like something about them.This reaction could be traced directly to the brain’s responses. â€Å"When people felt excluded,† says Eisenberger, â€Å"we saw activity in the dorsal portion of the anterior cingulate cortex — the neural region involved in the distressing component of pain, or what is sometimes referred to as the ‘suffering’ component of pain. Those people who felt the most rejected had the highest levels of activity in this region. † In other words, the feeling of being excluded provoked the same sort of reaction in the brain that physical pain might cause. (See Exhibit 1. ) Eisenberger’s fellow researcher Matthew Lieberman, lso of UCLA, hypothesizes that human beings evolved 2 features special report Illustration by Leigh Wells Neuroscience research is revealing the social nature of the high-performance workplace. SPECIAL REPORT: THE TALENT OPPORTUNITY this link between social connection and physical discomfort within the brain â€Å"because, to a mammal, being socially connected to caregivers is necessary for survival. † This study and many others now emerging have made one thing clear: The human brain is a social organ. Its physiological and neurological reactions are directly and profoundly shaped by social interaction. Indeed, asLieberman puts it, â€Å"Most processes operating in the background when your brain is at rest are involved in thinking about other people and yourself. † This presents enormous challenges to managers. Although a job is often regarded as a purely economic transaction, in which people exchange their labor for financial compensation, the brain experiences the workplace first and foremos t as a social system. Like the experiment participants whose avatars were left out of the game, people who feel betrayed or unrecognized at work — for example, when they are reprimanded, given an assignment that seems unworthy, or told to take a pay ut — experience it as a neural impulse, as powerful and painful as a blow to the head. Most people who work in companies learn to rationalize or temper their reactions; they â€Å"suck it up,† as the common parlance puts it. But they also limit their commitment and engagement. They become purely transactional employees, reluctant to give more of themselves to the company, because the social context stands in their way. Leaders who understand this dynamic can more effectively engage their employees’ best talents, support collaborative teams, and create an environment that fosters productive change.Indeed, the ability to intentionally address the social brain in the service of optimal performance will be a disti nguishing leadership capability in the years ahead. Triggering the Threat Response One critical thread of research on the social brain starts with the â€Å"threat and reward† response, a neurological mechanism that governs a great deal of human behavior. When you encounter something unexpected — a shadow seen from the corner of your eye or a new colleague moving into the office next door — the limbic system (a relatively primitive part of the brain, common to many animals) is aroused.Neuroscientist Evian Gordon refers to this as the â€Å"minimize danger, maximize reward† response; he calls it â€Å"the fundamental organizing principle of the brain. † Neurons are activated and hormones are released as you seek to learn whether this new entity represents a chance for reward or a potential danger. If the perception is danger, then the response becomes a pure threat response — also known as the fight or flight response, the avoid response, and , in its extreme form, the amygdala hijack, named for a part of the limbic system that can be aroused rapidly and in an emotionally overwhelming way.Recently, researchers have documented that the threat response is often triggered in social situations, and it tends to be more intense and longer-lasting than the reward response. Data gathered through measures of brain activity — by using fMRI and electroencephalograph (EEG) machines or by gauging hormonal secretions — suggests that the same neural responses that drive us toward food or away from predators are triggered by our perception of the way we are treated by other people. These findings are reframing the prevailing view of the role that social drivers play in influencing how humans behave.Matthew Lieberman notes that Abraham Maslow’s â€Å"hierarchy of needs† theory may have been wrong in this respect. Maslow proposed that strategy + business issue 56 features special report 3 David Rock ([email   protected] .com) is the founding president of the NeuroLeadership Institute (www. neuroleadership .org). He is also the CEO of Results Coaching Systems, which helps global organizations grow their leadership teams, using brain research as a base for self-awareness and social awareness. He is the author of Your Brain at Work (HarperBusiness, 2009) and Quiet Leadership: Six Steps toTransforming Performance at Work (Collins, 2006). Exhibit 1: Social and Physical Pain Produce Similar Brain Responses Physical hysic cal Pain ain solving; in other words, just when people most need their sophisticated mental capabilities, the brain’s internal resources are taken away from them. The impact of this neural dynamic is often visible in organizations. For example, when leaders trigger a threat response, employees’ brains become much less efficient. But when leaders make people feel good about themselves, clearly communicate their expectations, give employees latitude to make decisio ns, support people’s fforts to build good relationships, and treat the whole organization fairly, it prompts a reward response. Others in the organization become more effective, more open to ideas, and more creative. They notice the kind of information that passes them by when fear or resent- Illustration: Sam tion: Samuel Valasco muel Valasco Source: Eisenberger, Lieberman, and Williams, Science, 2003 (social pain images); Lieberman et al. , â€Å"The Neural Correlates of Placebo Effects: A Disruption Account,† : Lieberman, Science, (social Lieber rman â€Å"The N Neuroimage, May 2004 (physical pain images) mage, 4 features special report Social cial Pain ain Brain scans captured through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) show the same areas associated with distress, whether caused by rejection or physical pain. cingulate (highlighted social rejection or physical pain. The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (highlighted at left) is associated with the degree of distress; the right ventral distress. prefrontal cortex (highlighted at right) is associated with regulating the distre ntal ess. humans tend to satisfy their needs in sequence, starting with physical survival and moving up the ladder toward self-actualization at the top. In this hierarchy, social eeds sit in the middle. But many studies now show that the brain equates social needs with survival; for example, being hungry and being ostracized activate similar neural responses. The threat response is both mentally taxing and deadly to the productivity of a person — or of an organization. Because this response uses up oxygen and glucose from the blood, they are diverted from other parts of the brain, including the working memory function, which processes new information and ideas. This impairs analytic thinking, creative insight, and problem Neuroscience has discovered that the brain is highly plastic. Even the most ntrenched behaviors can be modified. Status and Its Discont ents Research into the social nature of the brain suggests another piece of this puzzle. Five particular qualities enable employees and executives alike to minimize the threat response and instead enable the reward response. These five social qualities are status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness: Because they can be expressed with the acronym SCARF, I sometimes think of them as a kind of headgear that an organization can wear to prevent exposure to dysfunction. To understand how the SCARF model works, let’s look at each characteristic in turn. eatures special report 5 ment makes it difficult to focus their attention. They are less susceptible to burnout because they are able to manage their stress. They feel intrinsically rewarded. Understanding the threat and reward response can also help leaders who are trying to implement large-scale change. The track record of failed efforts to spark higher-perfomance behavior has led many managers to conclude that human na ture is simply intractable: â€Å"You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. † Yet neuroscience has also discovered that the human brain is highly plastic. Neural connections can be reformed, new behaviors can e learned, and even the most entrenched behaviors can be modified at any age. The brain will make these shifts only when it is engaged in mindful attention. This is the state of thought associated with observing one’s own mental processes (or, in an organization, stepping back to observe the flow of a conversation as it is happening). Mindfulness requires both serenity and concentration; in a threatened state, people are much more likely to be â€Å"mindless. † Their attention is diverted by the threat, and they cannot easily move to self-discovery. In a previous article (â€Å"The Neuroscience ofLeadership,† s+b, Summer 2006), brain scientist Jeffrey Schwartz and I proposed that organizations could marshal mindful attention to create organizatio nal change. They could do this over time by putting in place regular routines in which people would watch the patterns of their thoughts and feelings as they worked and thus develop greater self-awareness. We argued that this was the only way to change organizational behavior; that the â€Å"carrots and sticks† of incentives (and behavioral psychology) did not work, and that the counseling and empathy of much organizational development was not fficient enough to make a difference. strategy + business issue 56 As humans, we are constantly assessing how social encounters either enhance or diminish our status. Research published by Hidehiko Takahashi et al. in 2009 shows that when people realize that they might compare unfavorably to someone else, the threat response kicks in, releasing cortisol and other stress-related hormones. (Cortisol is an accurate biological marker of the threat response; within the brain, feelings of low status provoke the kind of cortisol elevation asso ciated with sleep deprivation and chronic anxiety. Separately, researcher Michael Marmot, in his book The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity (Times Books, 2004), has shown that high status correlates with human longevity and health, even when factors like income and education are controlled for. In short, we are biologically programmed to care about status because it favors our survival. As anyone who has lived in a modest house in a high-priced neighborhood knows, the feeling of status is always comparative. And an executive with a salary of US$500,000 may feel elevated. . . until he or she is A Craving for Certainty he skills they have acquired, rather than for their seniority, is a status booster in itself. Values have a strong impact on status. An organization that appears to value money and rank more than a basic sense of respect for all employees will stimulate threat responses among employees who aren’t at the top of the heap. Similar ly, organizations that try to pit people against one another on the theory that it will make them work harder reinforce the idea that there are only winners and losers, which undermines the standing of people below the top 10 percent. 6 features special report ssigned to work with an executive making $2. 5 million. A study by Joan Chiao in 2003 found that the neural circuitry that assesses status is similar to that which processes numbers; the circuitry operates even when the stakes are meaningless, which is why winning a board game or being the first off the mark at a green light feels so satisfying. Competing against ourselves in games like solitaire triggers the same circuitry, which may help explain the phenomenal popularity of video games. Understanding the role of status as a core concern can help leaders avoid organizational practices that stir ounterproductive threat responses among employees. For example, performance reviews often provoke a threat response; people being rev iewed feel that the exercise itself encroaches on their status. This makes 360degree reviews, unless extremely participative and welldesigned, ineffective at generating positive behavioral change. Another common status threat is the custom of offering feedback, a standard practice for both managers and coaches. The mere phrase â€Å"Can I give you some advice? † puts people on the defensive because they perceive the person offering advice as claiming superiority.It is the cortisol equivalent of hearing footsteps in the dark. Organizations often assume that the only way to raise an employee’s status is to award a promotion. Yet status can also be enhanced in less-costly ways. For example, the perception of status increases when people are given praise. Experiments conducted by Keise Izuma in 2008 show that a programmed status-related stimulus, in the form of a computer saying â€Å"good job,† lights up the same reward regions of the brain as a financial windfall. The perception of status also increases when people master a new skill; paying employees more forWhen an individual encounters a familiar situation, his or her brain conserves its own energy by shifting into a kind of automatic pilot: it relies on long-established neural connections in the basal ganglia and motor cortex that have, in effect, hardwired this situation and the individual’s response to it. This makes it easy to do what the person has done in the past, and it frees that person to do two things at once; for example, to talk while driving. But the minute the brain registers ambiguity or confusion — if, for example, the car ahead of the driver slams on its brakes — the brain flashes an error signal.With the threat response aroused and working memory diminished, the driver must stop talking and shift full attention to the road. Uncertainty registers (in a part of the brain called the anterior cingulate cortex) as an error, gap, or tension: something tha t must be corrected before one can feel comfortable again. That is why people crave certainty. Not knowing what will happen next can be profoundly debilitating because it requires extra neural energy. This diminishes memory, undermines performance, and disengages people from the present. Of course, uncertainty is not necessarily debilitating. Mild ncertainty attracts interest and attention: New and challenging situations create a mild threat response, increasing levels of adrenalin and dopamine just enough to spark curiosity and energize people to solve problems. Moreover, different people respond to uncertainty in the world around them in different ways, depending in part on their existing patterns of thought. For example, when that car ahead stops suddenly, the driver who thinks, â€Å"What should I do? † is likely to be ineffective, whereas the driver who frames the incident as manageable — â€Å"I need to swerve left now because there’s a car on the rightâ €  — is well equipped to respond.All of life is uncertain; it is the perception of Relating to Relatedness given more control over decision making lived longer and healthier lives than residents in a control group who had everything selected for them. The choices themselves were insignificant; it was the perception of autonomy that mattered. Another study, this time of the franchise industry, identified work–life balance as the number one reason that people left corporations and moved into a franchise. Yet other data showed that franchise owners actually worked far longer hours (often for less money) than they had in corporate life.They nevertheless perceived themselves to have a better work–life balance because they had greater scope to make their own choices. Leaders who know how to satisfy the need for autonomy among their people can reap substantial benefits — without losing their best people to the entrepreneurial ranks. features special report 7 The Autonomy Factor too much uncertainty that undercuts focus and performance. When perceived uncertainty gets out of hand, people panic and make bad decisions. Leaders and managers must thus work to create a perception of certainty to build confident and dedicated eams. Sharing business plans, rationales for change, and accurate maps of an organization’s structure promotes this perception. Giving specifics about organizational restructuring helps people feel more confident about a plan, and articulating how decisions are made increases trust. Transparent practices are the foundation on which the perception of certainty rests. Breaking complex projects down into small steps can also help create the feeling of certainty. Although it’s highly unlikely everything will go as planned, people function better because the project now seems less ambiguous.Like the driver on the road who has enough information to calculate his or her response, an employee focused on a single, ma nageable aspect of a task is unlikely to be overwhelmed by threat responses. strategy + business issue 56 Studies by Steven Maier at the University of Boulder show that the degree of control available to an animal confronted by stressful situations determines whether or not that stressor undermines the ability to function. Similarly, in an organization, as long as people feel they can execute their own decisions without much oversight, stress remains under control.Because human brains evolved in response to stressors over thousands of years, they are constantly attuned, usually at a subconscious level, to the ways in which social encounters threaten or support the capacity for choice. A perception of reduced autonomy — for example, because of being micromanaged — can easily generate a threat response. When an employee experiences a lack of control, or agency, his or her perception of uncertainty is also aroused, further raising stress levels. By contrast, the perceptio n of greater autonomy increases the feeling of certainty and reduces stress.Leaders who want to support their people’s need for autonomy must give them latitude to make choices, especially when they are part of a team or working with a supervisor. Presenting people with options, or allowing them to organize their own work and set their own hours, provokes a much less stressed response than forcing them to follow rigid instructions and schedules. In 1977, a well-known study of nursing homes by Judith Rodin and Ellen Langer found that residents who were Fruitful collaboration depends on healthy relationships, which require trust and empathy. But in the brain, the bility to feel trust and empathy about others is shaped by whether they are perceived to be part of the same social group. This pattern is visible in many domains: in sports (â€Å"I hate the other team†), in organizational silos (â€Å"the ‘suits’ are the problem†), and in communities (†Å"those people on the other side of town always mess things up†). Each time a person meets someone new, the brain automatically makes quick friend-or-foe distinctions and then experiences the friends and foes in ways that are colored by those distinctions. When the new person is perceived as different, the information travels along eural pathways that are associated with uncomfortable feelings (different from the neural pathways triggered by people who are perceived as similar to oneself). Leaders who understand this phenomenon will find many ways to apply it in business. For example, teams of diverse people cannot be thrown together. They must be deliberately put together in a way that minimizes the potential for threat responses. Trust cannot be assumed or mandated, nor can empathy or even goodwill be compelled. These qualities develop only when people’s brains start to recognize former strangers as friends. This equires time and repeated social interaction. Once peop le make a stronger social connection, their brains begin to secrete a hormone called oxytocin in one another’s presence. This chemical, which has been linked with affection, maternal behavior, sexual arousal, and generosity, disarms the threat response and We now have reason to believe that economic incentives are effective only when people perceive them as supporting their social needs. The perception that an event has been unfair generates a strong response in the limbic system, stirring hostility and undermining trust. As with status, people perceive airness in relative terms, feeling more satisfied with a fair exchange that offers a minimal reward than an unfair exchange in which the reward is substantial. Studies conducted by Matthew Lieberman and Golnaz Tabibnia found that people respond more positively to being given 50 cents from a dollar split between them and another person than to receiving $8 out of a total of $25. Another study found that the experience of fairne ss produces reward responses in the brain similar to those that occur from eating chocolate. The cognitive need for fairness is so strong that some people are willing to fight and die for causes hey believe are just — or commit themselves wholeheartedly to an organization they recognize as fair. An executive told me he had stayed with his company for 22 years simply because â€Å"they always did the right thing. † People often engage in volunteer work for similar reasons: They perceive their actions as increasing the fairness quotient in the world. In organizations, the perception of unfairness creates an environment in which trust and collaboration cannot flourish. Leaders who play favorites or who appear to reserve privileges for people who are like them arouse a threat response in employees who are outside their circle.The old boys’ network provides an egregious example; those who are not a part of it always perceive their organizations as fundamentally unfai r, no matter how many mentoring programs are put in place. Like certainty, fairness is served by transparency. Leaders who share information in a timely manner can keep people engaged and motivated, even during staff reductions. Morale remains relatively high when people perceive that cutbacks are being handled fairly — that no one group is treated with preference and that there is a rationale for every cut. Putting on the SCARF If you are a leader, every action you take and every ecision you make either supports or undermines the perceived levels of status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness in your enterprise. In fact, this is why leading is so difficult. Your every word and glance is freighted with social meaning. Your sentences and gestures are noticed and interpreted, magnified and 8 features special report Playing for Fairness further activates the neural networks that permit us to perceive someone as â€Å"just like us. † Research by Michael Kosfeld et al. in 2005 shows that a shot of oxytocin delivered by means of a nasal spray decreases threat arousal.But so may a handshake and a shared glance over something funny. Conversely, the human threat response is aroused when people feel cut off from social interaction. Loneliness and isolation are profoundly stressful. John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick showed in 2008 that loneliness is itself a threat response to lack of social contact, activating the same neurochemicals that flood the system when one is subjected to physical pain. Leaders who strive for inclusion and minimize situations in which people feel rejected create an environment that supports maximum performance. This of course raises a hallenge for organizations: How can they foster relatedness among people who are competing with one another or who may be laid off? strategy + business issue 56 features special report 9 combed for meanings you may never have intended. The SCARF model provides a means of bringing conscio us awareness to all these potentially fraught interactions. It helps alert you to people’s core concerns (which they may not even understand themselves) and shows you how to calibrate your words and actions to better effect. Start by reducing the threats inherent in your company and in its leaders’ behavior.Just as the animal brain is wired to respond to a predator before it can focus attention on the hunt for food, so is the social brain wired to respond to dangers that threaten its core concerns before it can perform other functions. Threat always trumps reward because the threat response is strong, immediate, and hard to ignore. Once aroused, it is hard to displace, which is why an unpleasant encounter in traffic on the morning drive to work can distract attention and impair performance all day. Humans cannot think creatively, work well with others, or make informed decisions when their threat responses re on high alert. Skilled leaders understand this and act accor dingly. A business reorganization provides a good example. Reorganizations generate massive amounts of uncertainty, which can paralyze people’s ability to perform. A leader attuned to SCARF principles therefore makes reducing the threat of uncertainty the first order of business. For example, a leader might kick off the process by sharing as much information as possible about the reasons for the reorganization, painting a picture of the future company and explaining what the specific implications will be for the people who work there.Much will be unknown, but being clear about what is known and willing to acknowledge what is not goes a long way toward ameliorating uncertainty threats. Reorganizations also stir up threats to autonomy, because people feel they lack control over their future. An astute leader will address these threats by giving people latitude to make as many of their own decisions as possible — for example, when the budget must be cut, involving the peo ple closest to the work in deciding what must go. Because many reorganizations entail information technology upgrades that undermine peo- ple’s perception of autonomy by foisting new systems on hem without their consent, it is essential to provide continuous support and solicit employees’ participation in the design of new systems. Top-down strategic planning is often inimical to SCARF -related reactions. Having a few key leaders come up with a plan and then expecting people to buy into it is a recipe for failure, because it does not take the threat response into account. People rarely support initiatives they had no part in designing; doing so would undermine both autonomy and status. Proactively addressing these concerns by adopting an inclusive planning process can prevent the kind of unconscious sabotage hat results when people feel they have played no part in a change that affects them every day. Leaders often underestimate the importance of addressing threats to fairness. This is especially true when it comes to compensation. Although most people are not motivated primarily by money, they are profoundly de-motivated when they believe they are being unfairly paid or that others are overpaid by comparison. Leaders who recognize fairness as a core concern understand that disproportionately increasing compensation at the top makes it impossible to fully engage people at the middle or lower end of the pay cale. Declaring that a highly paid executive is â€Å"doing a great job† is counterproductive in this situation because those who are paid less will interpret it to mean that they are perceived to be poor performers. For years, economists have argued that people will change their behavior if they have sufficient incentives. But these economists have defined incentives almost exclusively in economic terms. We now have reason to believe that economic incentives are effective only when people perceive them as supporting their social needs. Status can also be enhanced by giving an employee reater scope to plan his or her schedule or the chance to develop meaningful relationships with those at different levels in the organization. The SCARF model thus provides leaders with more nuanced and cost-effective ways to expand the definition of reward. In doing so, SCARF principles also provide a more granular understanding of the state of engagement, in which employees give their best performance. Engagement can be induced when people working toward objectives feel rewarded by their efforts, with a manageable level of threat: in short, when the brain is generating rewards in several SCARF-related dimensions.Leaders themselves are not immune to the SCARF and cognitive problem solving reside in the lateral, or outer, portions of the brain, whereas the middle regions support self-awareness, social skills, and empathy. These regions are inversely correlated. As Lieberman notes, â€Å"If you spend a lot of time in cognitive tasks, your ability to have empathy for people is reduced simply because that part of your circuitry doesn’t get much use. † Perhaps the greatest challenge facing leaders of business or government is to create the kind of atmosphere that promotes status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness.When historians look back, their judgment of this period in time may rise or fall on how organizations, and society as a whole, operated. Did they treat people fairly, draw people together to solve problems, promote entrepreneurship and autonomy, foster certainty wherever possible, and find ways to raise the perceived status of everyone? If so, the brains of the future will salute them. + Resources Reprint No. 09306 John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick, Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection (W. W. Norton, 2008): A scientific look at the causes and effects of emotional isolation.Michael Marmot, The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and L ongevity (Times Books, 2004): An epidemiologist shows that people live longer when they have status, autonomy, and relatedness, even if they lack money. David Rock, Your Brain at Work: Strategies for Overcoming Distraction, Regaining Focus, and Working Smarter All Day Long (HarperBusiness, 2009): Neuroscience explanations for workplace challenges and dilemmas, and strategies for managing them. David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz, â€Å"The Neuroscience of Leadership,† s+b, Summer 2006, www. strategy-business. om/press/article/06207: Applying breakthroughs in brain research, this article explains the value of neuroplasticity in organizational change. David Rock, â€Å"SCARF: A Brain-based Model for Collaborating with and Influencing Others,† NeuroLeadership Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, December 2008, 44: Overview of research on the five factors described in this article, and contains bibliographic references for research quoted in this article. Naomi Eisenberger and Matthew Lieb erman, with K. D. Williams, â€Å"Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion,† Science, vol. 302, no. 643, October 2003, 290–292: Covers the Cyberball experiment. Naomi Eisenberger and Matthew Lieberman, â€Å"The Pains and Pleasures of Social Life,† Science, vol. 323, no. 5916, February 2009, 890–891: Explication of social pain and social pleasure, and the impact of fairness, status, and autonomy on brain response. NeuroLeadership Institute Web site, www. neuroleadership. org: Institute bringing together research scientists and management experts to explore the transformation of organizational development and performance. For more business thought leadership, sign up for s+b ’s RSS feeds at www. trategy-business. com/rss 10 features special report dynamic; like everyone else, they react when they feel their status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fair treatment are threatened. However, their reactions have more impact, because th ey are picked up and amplified by others throughout the company. (If a company’s executive salaries are excessive, it may be because others are following the leader’s intuitive emphasis, driven by subconscious cognition, on anything that adds status. ) If you are an executive leader, the more practiced you are at reading yourself, the more effective you will e. For example, if you understand that micromanaging threatens status and autonomy, you will resist your own impulse to gain certainty by dictating every detail. Instead, you’ll seek to disarm people by giving them latitude to make their own mistakes. If you have felt the hairs on the back of your own neck rise when someone says, â€Å"Can I offer you some feedback? † you will know it’s best to create opportunities for people to do the hard work of self-assessment rather than insisting they depend on performance reviews. When a leader is self-aware, it gives others a feeling f safety even in un certain environments. It makes it easier for employees to focus on their work, which leads to improved performance. The same principle is evident in other groups of mammals, where a skilled pack leader keeps members at peace so they can perform their functions. A self-aware leader modulates his or her behavior to alleviate organizational stress and creates an environment in which motivation and creativity flourish. One great advantage of neuroscience is that it provides hard data to vouch for the efficacy and value of so-called soft skills. It also shows the danger of being a hard-charging eader whose best efforts to move people along also set up a threat response that puts others on guard. Similarly, many leaders try to repress their emotions in order to enhance their leadership presence, but this only confuses people and undermines morale. Experiments by Kevin Ochsner and James Gross show that when someone tries not to let other people see what he or she is feeling, the other part y tends to experience a threat response. That’s why being spontaneous is key to creating an authentic leadership presence. This approach is likely to minimize status threats, increase certainty, nd create a sense of relatedness and fairness. Finally, the SCARF model helps explain why intelligence, in itself, isn’t sufficient for a good leader. Matthew Lieberman’s research suggests that high intelligence often corresponds with low self-awareness. The neural networks involved in information holding, planning, strategy+business magazine is published by Booz & Company Inc. To subscribe, visit www. strategy-business. com or call 1-877-829-9108. For more information about Booz & Company, visit www. booz. com Looking Booz & Company Inc.  © 2009 for Booz Allen Hamilton? It can be found at at www. boozallen. com