Hack Your Brain: Mastering the 5 Managerial Superpowers

 What if I told you that your brain is running on autopilot most of the time? That your reactions, decisions, and even conflicts are often driven by deeply ingrained habits rather than conscious thought? The good news is that you can take control. You can hack your brain, reprogram it for success, and become the leader—or simply the person—you want to be.

That’s exactly what my book and course, Mastering the 5 Managerial Superpowers, are designed to teach. Using behavioral science, I guide you through the process of rewiring your brain to manage yourself, your responses, and ultimately, your interactions with others more effectively. Here’s how:

Step 1: Build Your Foundation – Self-Awareness & Compassion

Before you can change anything, you need to understand how your brain works. Most of us operate on autopilot, reacting to situations based on past experiences and deeply ingrained patterns. Developing self-awareness allows you to recognize these patterns. Pairing that with compassion—for yourself and others—creates the space for real change.

Once you’re aware of how you react, you can begin to practice self-control. This is the key to breaking automatic responses and gaining the ability to choose how you respond instead of letting emotions or old habits take over.

Step 2: Hack Your Brain Using Behavioral Science

The science of change is clear: small, intentional shifts create lasting transformation. Your brain thrives on reinforcement and repetition. This means that with deliberate practice, you can create new neural pathways that make strategic thinking your default instead of knee-jerk reactions.

This is where behavioral science techniques come into play. By understanding how habits form and how reinforcement works, you can train your brain to make better choices automatically. The result? You become more effective in managing yourself, your work, and your relationships.

Step 3: Manage Conflict by Managing Your Response

Conflict is inevitable—but how you respond to it determines the outcome. The difference between escalating a conflict and resolving it effectively comes down to one thing: your response.

When you learn to pause, assess, and choose your response strategically, you take control of the situation rather than letting it control you. This shift empowers you to handle even the most difficult interactions with confidence and clarity.

Your Superpower Awaits

Mastering these skills isn’t just about leadership—it’s about harnessing the power of your own mind to create the outcomes you want. When you learn to control your responses, you gain the ultimate superpower: the ability to shape your own reality.

Ready to start hacking your brain for success? Check out Mastering the 5 Managerial Superpowers and unlock the skills that will change the way you lead, work, and live.

Leading Like a Dancer: The Art of Courteous Leadership

I recently joined a new contra dance community and have been dancing lead quite a bit. It’s been an eye-opening experience, not just for my dancing, but also for how I think about leadership.

But first a primer on Contra Dancing. Contra Dance is a social folk dance with roots in English, Scottish, and French traditions, popular in the U.S. since the colonial era. It involves long lines of dancers who move through a series of repeating figures, guided by a caller who prompts the moves in time with live music. Even though you dance with a partner, everyone interact with everyone else in the set as part of the dance. This creates a dynamic, fun and communal experience. 

While callers historically used gendered roles (“gents” and “ladies”) to describe the roles in the dance patterns, many modern communities use the more inclusive terms “leader” and “follower” as they better reflect the roles being played by the dancers in a set.  This is not done to erase gender, it's more that it isn't uncommon for people of the same gender to dance together. This is, after all, a social dance. Friends dance with friends, and you dance with everyone. Also, there are sometimes gender imbalances at a dance meaning too few women or too few men. If you still want to dance a set, you dance with whoever else wants to dance.

In my new dance community, women outnumber men two to one. If we ladies want to dance and there is no available gent, we dance with each other and since it's silly to refer to ladies as gents and gents as ladies and because we can't both follow, one of us needs to be the leader and the other the follower. This change has made the dancing so much more fun! Sometimes even if it is a gent and a lady dancing, the gent will request to dance as a follower and allow the lady to lead.  The dance is gender neutral, the roles of follower and leader are what matter to the patterns we are dancing, and the point is to have fun, while dancing. 

The Leader’s Job: Ensuring a Good Experience

Having spent decades dancing as a lady, I'm used to dancing the follower role. And I'm quite good at it. I know how to take a lead. It’s why my grandfather loved dancing with me—I could read his signals and respond smoothly to them. But leading? Leading is something I've only recently started doing, and I’ve come to love it! 

In social dance, the leader’s job isn’t to dominate or control or even to show off. It’s to ensure the follower has a good experience. In old-school terms, the “gent” wanted the “lady” to like him, so he led with courtesy and care. His role was to make sure his partner enjoys the dance—because if they don’t, why would they want to dance with him again?

When I dance as a leader, I pay attention to what my partner enjoys. Do they love spins? Great! Prefer to keep things simple? Perfect! The goal isn’t to impose my vision of how we should dance, it’s to guide them in a way that makes the experience enjoyable for both of us.

Leadership as Courtesy

While most contra dances are equal, meaning leaders and followers dance the same patterns, there are some elements where the leader and follower have different moves.

One of these moves is the courtesy turn. In this move, the follower takes center stage. They are the star. They dance across the set to either their partner or their neighbor, often with a flourish. The leader’s role is stand in place and be ready to accept the momentum of the follower, and provide balance and guidance to help them gently turn around, so they can re-enter the dance smoothly.

The follower needs this help because their momentum is taking them in one direction and they need help to turn around in time with the music. This is the job of the leader. To help them turn around by giving them something to balance against. 

And this the key to understanding the leaders role. A courtesy turn is called a courtesy turn for a reason. It’s a courtesy you do for your partner/follower.

I’ve danced with people who don’t know how to lead, and when they don’t provide that gentle guidance or courtesy, it throws everything off and can be dangerous for the follower. A follower spinning and twirling without a leader’s support can lose their place in the dance, flung into uncertainty. A good leader provides balance, guidance, and a clear but gentle path forward.

The leader doesn't just help guide the follower in turning them around to face back into the dance - the great leaders also help guide them into their next position. And they do this gently and with courtesy so that it is fun and not - violent. 

This principle applies beyond the dance floor.

Leadership in the Workplace

Good workplace leadership mirrors good dance leadership. Employees are the stars—the ones doing the actual work. The leader’s role is to guide, support, and ensure they’re moving in the right direction.

Just like in dance, you cannot lead effectively by being harsh, dictatorial, or forceful. It’s not just ineffective—it’s harmful. If a dance leader yanks, shoves, or demands their partner do something. They don't just risk injuring their partner, they risk alienating them. If the partner doesn't have a good time, or is scared by the leader, they won’t want to dance with them again. 

The same is true in the workplace. Employees aren’t tools to be manipulated or forced into compliance. They’re human beings with choices.

If you don’t lead with courtesy—if you don’t guide, support, and respect your followers, they will find another person to dance with. 

The Takeaway

Whether on the dance floor or in the workplace, great leadership is about courtesy, guidance, and ensuring a good experience for those who follow you. If you do it well, people will not only follow—you’ll create something beautiful together.

So, the next time you think about leadership, ask yourself: Are you leading like a dancer?

Bystander Responsibilities

I reporter asked me to weigh in on how to encourage bystanders to step up and help fix problems, like bullying.  Because this impacts more than just that, I wanted to post it here in the context of Humanistic Leadership.

People who step up, and help those in need, are the people who become leaders. Want to be a leader, someone others want to follow, you need to find the courage to live by your ethics. 

Below is the Q&A I did with the reporter.  Here is the link to the article where I am the featured expert: https://www.boredpanda.com/boyfriend-emasculated-girlfriend-help-girl/

1. How often does the bystander effect take place and people refrain from helping those in need?

I do not know.

2. How can the bystander effect be broken when someone needs help, but people around them don’t take action?

This is about personal responsibility. You decide to take action. Don’t wait for others. If you think the person needs help and you are thinking – someone should check to see if this person is ok – that someone, is you. Just do it. Whether or not anyone else does – you should do what you think is right. 

My understanding (and again – I’m not an expert on the studies) is that when one person comes to aid an individual – it gives permission to the others to do the same. And this is one of the things I teach about personal ethics. You don’t need other people’s approval to do the right thing. Just – do it. And when you do – you will find that others appreciate that you took the initiative.  I’ve also found that by taking the initiative to be ethical and act when something is wrong, that people who do this – are seen as leaders – because they are leading with ethics. 

3. In your opinion, how important is it not to be apathetic to other people, especially those in need of help?

Extremely important. If you can help someone in need, you should help them. Take the time if you can. Apathy is emotionally draining and discouraging to experience. When you choose to pay attention and to act with compassion to people in need, you feel connected, you feel alive, you feel good about yourself and about the person you helped. Can you help everyone? No. No one can. But if you can help an individual, help them.  You will be glad you did. The hardest part of this is to find the courage to do it. In your story, the guy was scared. He lacked courage. Finding the courage and acting despite your fears, I’ve always found that personally, I’d rather act (with reason as my guide) than wonder what I might have done. Knowing I at least tried to help, helps assuage any guilt I might feel later if I didn’t act.  The more you act courageously the easier it becomes.  The key for me is to recognize the humanity of the individual and see them as fully human. This makes it easier to take action and find the connection in yourself to see, there but for fortune go you or I.

4. How empathic/apathetic would you say society is nowadays? Do you see a trend indicating that it is going one way or another, becoming more empathic or more apathetic?

I don’t have any studies I can point to – but in my personal experience I think we are at the same levels we have always been at. This is a universal problem that has been written about for as long as writing has been a thing. Humans have always struggled to connect and help one another. We all have moments where our empathy is overwhelming and when our apathy is overwhelming. This is why it’s important to NOT worry about what other people are doing, but to focus on what you – as an individual – can or should be doing in any given situation. Personally, I am guided by compassion and humanism. My personal practice is to see others as fully human worthy of dignity and compassion so when a homeless person asks for help, I help them as much as I can. I stop what I am doing and be present with them and help with what I can help with. Or if I see someone struggling, I try to help them. 

Would you like to add anything else?

Like anything – this requires balance.  You cannot save other people, you can only help them a bit. So compassion has to be tempered with reason.  A homeless woman I met in the DC train station asked me to purchase her some toiletries, which I did. I also bought her some food. We chatted and hugged and then I got on my train. I can’t save her from homelessness. But I could alleviate her suffering a little bit. And sometimes that is enough. It is what I could do in that moment. Another woman I helped, she was squatting with her daughter in an house without electricity and water. I gave her water, let her use my phone. Eventually she decided to return home to her parents and get her life in order. I helped how I could, but I didn’t try to save her. I treated her with dignity and compassion and helped how I could, with boundaries to make sure that helping her – didn’t hurt me if that makes sense. 

But again – this is all about personal ethics. What sort of person do you want to be. Then – be it. Don’t wait for permission to behave ethically and with dignity to people in need.

At least fix the problem.

As a strategic planner, one of my pet peeves is people creating plans that don’t accomplish their objectives at all, waste resources and cause problems instead of solving them.

Government – does this a lot. We tend to get the most expensive options, that don’t solve the problem they are intended to solve – but cause an astonishing amount of collateral damage.

As a citizen -  I’m furious about the collateral damage caused. Most of the time it is totally unnecessary to cause that damage. It is literally the planner not caring at all if they cause harm or not. So they don’t plan to mitigate harm.

And honestly – that wouldn’t be so horrible IF they accomplished their stated objectives – but often – they don’t. So – we get a new expensive harm causing problem in addition to the original problem, which is still a problem. 

For example – goal: Reduce # elective abortions.

None of the anti abortion laws passed – do this. At. All. People who want elective abortions – can get them. They have time to travel or find alternative methods – because it’s elective. So – if they want an elective abortion, they can go get them.  

The only people the anti-abortion laws harm – are people in medically precarious situations who don’t have time to shop around. Those people now have fewer doctors to help them because lots of OBGYNs are now just GYNs because they don’t want to risk jail or expensive legal hassles just for helping to keep their clients alive. Those that are able to find a obstetrical doctor may also have problems if they experience a medical emergency. For instance: the doctors at the emergency room have to consider whether they will be charged with crimes if they save your life. And most aren’t willing to take that risk – so we now have women dying in hospital parking lots because the doctors choose to stay out of jail instead of saving someone’s life.

My beef? The laws don’t stop elective abortions. They just cause unnecessary collateral damage. And it infuriates me!

Border security? Same thing. The border is still open because the courts ruled we can’t close them. Want to stop people from coming to the border? That requires conditions in the country of origin to be good enough that people don’t want to leave.  Want to deport people more quickly? That requires resources to be allocated to the deportation process. Something that the people who want to deport people have repeatedly, for decades, refused to allocate resources to.

It is infuriating me as a strategic planner. Not only is the human toll of these bad policies intolerable, we are wasting huge sums doing things that don’t fix the problem!  

It would be cheaper to solve the problem. But I think that is the point. As soon as we ask who benefits from this it becomes clear.  By not solving the problem and instead – paying huge sums to private contractors to do things that don’t work, we are funneling our wealth to oligarchs. That is why the people who want to incarcerate and deport are so eager to do that. There is a huge amount of money to be made causing human suffering. And if you fix the underlying problem, all that money will no longer flow to oligarchs.

So we can't fix the border, because to do so would be less expensive and the oligarch's wouldn't get their money. Our money. 

Speaking of Oligarchs:

Let's discuss the oligarchy and the employee purge. One of the plans of the incoming administration is: to purge our government agencies and our military of anyone disloyal to the new president. 

According to project 2025, they plan to replace public servants with corporate consultants, which is again, a boon to oligarchs and the massive consulting firms who will win these contracts.

Here are the problems with this plan. 

Problem 1) you are replacing employees who work for the American people, with employees who work for an oligarch. They aren't going to be loyal to we the people. They won't even be loyal to the president. They are going to be loyal to the people who pay them, who are the oligarchs. This is insanely bad for we the people. 

2) Institutional expertise is purged – in purges. So instead of people who understand the problems and how to best solve them, you get people who don't know how to solve the problem. 

3) It’s is always more expensive to outsource employment than it is to employ people yourself. Why? Because privatization is a way to create a spoils system where some of the money that was supposed to go towards helping people is instead siphoned off for private profit.

Basically, we pay more, and get less and the workers aren't loyal to we the people. 

It's annoying

It's really really really annoying that this is happening. We are going to have more suffering and it's going to cost us more to not fix our problems.  The least they could do - is fix the problems. They won't. There is too much money to be made.