SCARF: Open to Diverse Viewpoints

A strategy with great impact on openness to diverse viewpoints is SCARF, developed by David Rock, neuroscientist. Here is an example on how this model works: A friend tells the story about a forty-five minute, productive conversation about setting goals using a variation of the planning and reflection conversation. Suddenly, one teacher raised his voice, and in an angry tone said, “I am sick and tired of this. We have been down this path before! We are just wasting our time talking about how we are going to do this!” The group stopped cold and turned to the principal.

To read the full article, members please log in here. To subscribe please click here.

While it wasn’t stated, they were silently asking, “What now, Boss?” Fortunately, this principal could turn to Humble Inquiry. He responded, “So this is not working for you today. What is on your mind?” Through a few gentle questions, the principal uncovered the real issue, which was time. The staff had been discussing a complicated implementation plan that would require teachers to dedicate time to collaboration
after school. This teacher was just getting custody of his children and did not want to commit his after-school time. His real issue was about autonomy: he needed to be able to do what he had always done to stay efficient and preserve time for his family. His personal motivations were in conflict with the group’s. While Humble Inquiry uncovered the motivation, the SCARF model can be invaluable in helping groups
better understand each other’s unstated motivations.

The SCARF Model

Through coaching and work with groups, David Rock has identified personal motivations that play into how they react to situations as including Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness, which he calls SCARF.

Much to everyone’s surprise, the staff found this to be an amazing solution. This example demonstrates how the underlying motivations of SCARF can both add to or detract from a conversation. From the mentioned example, it turned out that a small group of teachers wanted to be acknowledged (Status) and were willing to take the lead to make sure the after-school collaborations were on-target and focused. The woman who loved Certainty was willing to work on implementation and then copartner with her colleague, to help him focus on just the essentials. The staff agreed that for the first semester, while the gentleman was becoming reacquainted with his own children, he would not have to attend any of the after-school collaborations. They all agreed that this was a fair compromise.

When groups learn to work with these five social domains, they find solutions to group dilemmas that are elegant and sustaining. This example demonstrates how expanding our conversational repertoire can be particularly useful, especially when emotional responses have the potential to break down communication. The paradox of emotional responses here was that just when one group member got what she wanted (Certainty), another lost what he most needed (Autonomy). When these emotional reward and threat systems kick in, the behaviours become self-protective (stress response), and if groups are not mindful, the focus on common outcomes can be lost in the power struggle over competing, individual needs.

SCARF: A More In-Depth Look

Status relates to a person’s sense of worth based on experience, knowledge, specific skills, or life experiences. When group members don’t feel validated or noticed, they seek Status as a way of triggering the reward circuit. They are often called braggarts because even in everyday
conversations they do not want to be perceived as any less valued than others. To reduce the threat and increase the reward value of this motivation, groups must find ways to give more credit to each other for the learning that is taking place.

Certainty provides a sense of security by allowing the person to operate in familiar and more certain circumstances. Closely associated with Certainty is a desire to anticipate the future. On the upside of this behaviour is the drive for clarity and perseverance in seeking to understand. On the down-side is the need to control and operate from fixed views. To reduce threat and increase reward, groups need to work toward clarity and as much certainty as possible.

Autonomy creates a need for control of their own self and their own situations. Directives and other efforts to control behaviour are often met with resistance. Opening up choice to give some autonomy provides options and gives the responsibility for deciding back to those who will need to act on the decision. This is a powerful motivator and activates the reward circuit. It is important to note that autonomy does not mean total control, but rather some aspect of control. For this reason, boundaries, rather than strict rules, allow for more choices.

Relatedness builds mutual trust and encourages work toward common ends. A higher sense of Relatedness influences the production of oxytocin in the brain and creates the positive emotions of the reward. Building relationships becomes motivating and can be the social glue that holds organisations together. Yet these alliances can also lead to dysfunction. When group members form alliances that exclude others,
they create “in” and “out” groups. For the “in” group, the bond of relationship is powerful. For the “out” group, these shifting alliances can create distrust and resentment. When it is time to take a reflection break, group members are instructed to find someone they do not usually talk to, someone from another department or grade, or allow those who have been in a school fewer than five years to pick a partner that has been there more than five years. Relatedness builds mutual trust and encourages work toward common ends.

Fairness communicates a sense of balance and encourages us to consider equity. In schools, where pay is based on job function or time on the job, the perceived “investment of effort or time on the job” can be seen as a violation of fairness. When one person works long hours and the other skips out early, the threat response can kick in and get in the way of productive group work. Another Fairness issue is the feeling that decisions are not good for all parties, so more transparency, especially by describing why or how a decision was made, can lead to better understanding for everyone.

By now, it should be obvious that these five different motivations can easily promote bonding with a few and conflict with others. When a few strong people create alliances, especially if they include an appointed leader, they can make others feel decisions are not fair or that decisions are railroaded through. This can trigger any of the SCARF responses, with some experiencing reward and others perceiving negative impacts. These can be particularly toxic environments.

The irony of this entire story is that this curmudgeon’s outburst ended up being a gift to the group. By listening and inquiring, they found elegant ways to meet his needs but also used their own talents to support the entire group.

This strategy is one from Bill’s new book: Nine Professional Conversations to Change our Schools: A Dashboard of Options available from amazon.com

Related Posts

Navigating Challenging Conversations

Navigating Challenging Conversations

Rise and Fall of Organisations

Rise and Fall of Organisations

RiEducation Leadership Keys for 2024

RiEducation Leadership Keys for 2024

Department Heads Effectively Leading as the Middle Managers

Department Heads Effectively Leading as the Middle Managers

DRWilliamSommers


Dr William A. Sommers, PhD
William A. Sommers, PhD, of Austin, Texas, continues to be a learner, teacher, principal, author, leadership coach and consultant. Bill has come out of retirement multiple times to put theory into practice as a principal. This article is based on the book, Nine Professional Conversations to Change our Schools: A Dashboard of Options.
You can contact him via email:
sommersb4@gmail.com