ArticlePDF Available

Organizational neuroscience: The promise and prospects of an emerging discipline

Authors:

Abstract

We review and discuss an Organizational Neuroscience perspective on management science research. Reviewing recent findings in the brain sciences, we provide concrete examples of how an organizational neuroscience perspective can advance organizational behavior research. We conclude that this new paradigm offers powerful insights and tools that complement traditional organizational research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The
Incubator
Organizational neuroscience: The promise
and prospects of an emerging discipline
WILLIAM J. BECKER*AND RUSSELL CROPANZANO
Department of Management and Organizations, Eller College of Management, The University of
Arizona, Arizona, U.S.A.
Summary We review and discuss an Organizational Neuroscience perspective on management science
research. Reviewing recent findings in the brain sciences, we provide concrete examples of
how an organizational neuroscience perspective can advance organizational behavior research.
We conclude that this new paradigm offers powerful insights and tools that complement
traditional organizational research. Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Modern neuroscience has leveraged technological breakthroughs in brain imaging and computational
modeling to illuminate the inner workings of the human brain. These breakthroughs have
spawned revolutions in allied disciplines that go by such names as neuropsychology, neuroeconomics,
and neuromarketing. Neuroscience is an interdisciplinary field of study, which seeks to understand
behavioral phenomenon in terms of the brain mechanisms and interactions that produce cognitive
processes and behavior (Ochsner & Lieberman, 2001). We propose that Organizational Neuroscience
will likewise be a profitable endeavor. To this end, we define organizational neuroscience as a
deliberate and judicious approach to spanning the divide between neuroscience and organizational
science. We suggest that organizational scholars read widely and collaborate with neuroscience
scholars. Wewant to stress that despite its remarkable technology and promise, neuroscientific research
also currently suffers from a number of important technical and methodological limitations that
necessitate caution when interpreting the findings of any one study (Ochsner & Lieberman, 2001).
In this Incubator, we will argue that new and existing theories of organizational behavior can be
enhanced by incorporating the findings and themes from neuroscience regarding how the brain
produces cognition, attitudes, and behaviors. Neuroscientific methods will complement traditional
methods, not supplant them. Rather than abandoning our long-established tools of inquiry,
organizational behavior (OB) scholars should immerse themselves in the dialogue of neuroscience,
drawing on consistent findings within this growing body of research. In this way, we can formulate and
test new theoretical propositions that integrate neuroscience findings with what we have already
learned about work behavior. Further, an organizational neuroscience perspective will undoubtedly
move organizational behavior in the direction of unifying our theories because neuroscience identifies
common neural processes across behaviors. In this Incubator, we will review a few relatively mature
areas of neuroscientific research that have direct application to OB. Sufficient research has been
Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 1055–1059 (2010)
Published online 8 June 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.668
* Correspondence to: William J Becker, Department of Management and Organizations, Eller College of Management, The
University of Arizona, AZ, U.S.A. E-mail: beckerwj@email.arizona.edu
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 9 September 2009
Accepted 14 September 2009
published on each of these topics to yield conclusive findings that can be applied with confidence to
existing OB theory.
Applying Neuroscience to Organizational Behavior
Organizational neuroscience is best thought of as a paradigm or interpretive framework that sheds new
light on existing problems, as well as raising questions that might not otherwise be considered. While
an in-depth review of the neuroscience literature is beyond the scope of this Incubator, it has become
clear that the human brain is incredibly adaptable and that cognition and action are connected across
time and space. Neuroscience suggests that many brain processes have evolved over the millennia for
specific purposes, are biologically programmed, and frequently automatic (Lieberman, 2007). Here,
we will focus on three specific and likely profitable future research directions where a neuroscience
perspective could provide immediate and meaningful advances to existing theory and practice. These
specific examples were selected because they yield surprising predictions that can be tested using
neuroscientific and traditional research methods.
Combating procrastination: goal selection and maintenance
Procrastination is a self-defeating behavior that involves putting off actions that should be performed
promptly given existing goals and information. Neuroscience research provides valuable insights into
why goal directed behavior is vulnerable to procrastination (Reddish, Jensen, & Johnson, 2008). It is
commonly believed that there are two decision systems within the brain, a planning system and a habit-
based system. The human capacity to plan and carry out long-term goal-directed behavior derives from
the much more recently evolved planning system. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is a key component of
the planning system and plays an important role in successfully formulating goal-directed behavior.
One of the classic symptoms of PFC damage is the inability to form and achieve goals (Miller, 2000).
The planning system is capable of simulating multiple action-outcome contingencies and selecting an
action that is judged most likely to produce desired outcomes.
In contrast, the habit-based decision system works quite differently. It resides in older brain
structures and is much simpler and slower learning. The habit system does not consider outcomes as
such, but rather automatically matches situations to actions based on previous experience. The habitual
goal oriented systems of the brain tend to stabilize body and mind states around homeostatic set points
whose maintenance produces contentment if not happiness (Camerer, Lowenstein, & Prelec, 2005). A
deviation away from these setpoints creates unease, negative emotion, and even pain. Movement back
toward these comfort zones generates reward response and positive emotion. Thus, homeostasis and the
habit-based decision system can actually work against rational goals set by the planning system.
Employees facing challenging goals will be susceptible to procrastination because of the
characteristics of the planning and habit decision systems. The habit system clearly biases employees
to continue past behaviors and forego novel actions. Unfortunately, actions toward a goal that exceeds a
current norm will challenge the status quo and create short-term pain. Homeostatic tensions bias
evaluations within the planning system against these actions and often forestall their implementation.
For example, an employee may genuinely wish to improve their performance, but doing so would
require them to work longer hours than they are accustomed to. The discomfort of working harder than
normal may quickly subvert their desired but delayed and uncertain performance goal.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 1055–1059 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
1056 W. J. BECKER AND R. CROPANZANO
Ultimately, realizing challenging goals requires one to override habit and homeostatic responses and
eventually establish higher set points. Neuroscience suggests one possible avenue for overcoming these
weaknesses in the decision making systems that lead to procrastination. Speaking generally, one
solution is to upset the status quo and thereby jumpstart the conscious planning system. For example,
this could be accomplished by making current levels of valued outcomes contingent upon progress
toward new goals. For example, pay raises could be frozen across the organization until progress
toward new goals can be evaluated. Those making sufficient progress could then be rewarded by
restoring and increasing these valued outcomes that were temporarily withheld. In this way, the
decision landscape is altered and the habit system can be preempted. Therefore, employees
are compelled to select novel courses of action that advance new goals in order to protect or restore the
previous outcome levels. Once the status quo and continuing past actions are divorced from desired
outcomes, the planning system will dominate behavior selection to achieve desired outcomes
(Matsumoto & Tanaka, 2004). In this way, the human predilection toward procrastination can be
overcome and essentially removed as a viable option. Once this stickiness in the planning system is
eliminated, employees will be more likely to follow through and achieve intended goals.
Mirror neurons and group sub-climates
The discovery of mirror neurons suggests that our brains are wired to make us open to social influences
for adaptive purposes (Goleman, 2006). Mirror neurons were originally discovered in macaque
monkeys. It was found that when a monkey observed another performing a task, neurons in the
premotor cortex ‘‘mirrored’ the actions. That is, the brain of the observing animal responded as if it
were performing the action itself. Subsequent research found that humans also possess mirror neurons.
Our mirror neuron system (MNS) responds not only to visual observation of goal-directed actions, but
also to dynamic motion, facial expressions, and sound (Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004). Stated a bit more
strongly, the brain responds as if the observer were the person being observed. This facilitates the
ability to learn vicariously; we simply watch others.
Therefore, intragroup relations present another area of organizational research where the integration
of a neuroscience perspective will be crucial to advancing theory. Specifically, the human MNS
supports a wide range of social functions including non-verbal communication, implicit coordination,
and simulation of the goals, intentions, and even mental states of others (Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004;
Rizzolatti & Fabbri-Destro, 2008). The MNS may provide a mechanism for understanding how
organizational climates (e.g., for justice, ethics, or customer service, for a review see Kuenzi &
Schminke, 2009) emerge within interdependent work teams. This insight accounts for why workgroups
develop distinct sub-climates that can dissociate from organizational climates. This in turn may explain
why top down attempts to change organizational cultures often fail.
When team members interact, the MNS is finely tuned to perceive the actions, expressions, and body
language of others. They implicitly learn from and assess the behaviors of other members. The MNS
will lead group members who interact frequently to converge toward attitudes and behaviors that are
adaptive for the group, but not necessarily for the organization. This capability facilitates role
emergence and tacit coordination among team members. It has been suggested that organizational
leaders can establish organizational climate by setting an example for others throughout the
organization to follow. The emerging picture of the MNS indicates that group climates will be more
strongly affected by strong group members than by high-level leaders that do not interact directly with
the group. While behaving as top-level role models is helpful, upper managers who wish to change the
organizational climate should also engage middle managers and ensure that desired behaviors are being
modeled by prominent members of each group.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 1055–1059 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
ORGANIZATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE 1057
Attitudes and behavior: How attitude structures resist organizational change
Organizational change efforts frequently fail. One of the more difficult obstacles to organizational
change is overcoming individual resistance to change. In general, people do not want to change. Even
when employees report that they support changes they often continue with behaviors that subvert
change. This contradiction may be traced to the intricacy of the attitude system and the relationship
between attitudes and behaviors. Neuroscience suggests that it is important to distinguish among three
different types of attitudes: Implicit, explicit, and expressed (Cunningham, Zelazo, Packer, & Van
Bavel, 2007). An implicit attitude is rapid, automatic, and comprises unconscious evaluations in
response to stimuli. In direct contrast, an explicit attitude is a relatively slower, deliberative, and
conscious evaluation based on contextual information. An expressed attitude is one that people report,
such as when participants complete a survey. Most organizational behavior research has investigated
expressed attitudes, but these are not necessarily a natural part of the attitude— behavior process.
When an individual is asked to indicate his or her attitude, such as on a self-report research
instrument, this expressed response contains both implicit and explicit elements (Gawronski &
Bodenhausen, 2006). However, while these features appear to be seamlessly aggregated in the mind of
the responder, it is becoming clear that implicit and explicit attitudes need not be closely linked to one
another. They can in fact often become dissociated. Implicit and explicit attitudes seem to play distinct
roles in the formation of expressed attitudes. Indeed, implicit and explicit attitudes are even processed
by different neural systems within the brain.
Current neuroscience attitude models suggest that implicit attitudes are the starting point for explicit
attitudes. Further, expressed attitudes are generated online and result from the integration of implicit
and explicit attitudes (Cunningham et al., 2007; Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006). In order to explain
why some attitudes are extremely resistant to change, we must explore how implicit and explicit
attitudes change. Implicit attitudes result from automatic associations and are generally more stable
over time than are explicit attitudes. In general, changing an implicit attitude requires a permanent
change to the pattern of neuronal connections. This requires long-term exposure to stimuli that
contradicts the existing implicit attitude and occurs only incrementally.
Explicit attitudes are somewhat more tractable regarding change efforts. This is because they are
generated through a propositional reasoning process that considers goals, extended belief systems,
social norms, and broader contextual issues in real time (Cunningham et al., 2007). As such, explicit
attitudes can be altered by relatively subtle contextual changes. Simply, constraining the time available
to produce an explicit attitude is likely to have a significant effect. Explicit attitudes are also susceptible
to persuasion attempts and social influence (Crano & Prislin, 2006; Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006).
As expressed attitudes typically begin with implicit attitudes and end with explicit attitudes,
managers may mistake a short-term alteration in the latter for a long-term transformation of the former.
Hence, an implicated attitudinal ‘‘core’ may remain. Over time, stable implicit attitudes could impede
behavioral change. They could even allow previous explicit attitudes to reassert themselves. In
summary, changing expressed explicit attitudes is relatively easy but doing so accomplishes little and
may not reflect any ‘‘inner truth’ or produce lasting behavioral changes.
Conclusion
In this Incubator our primary objective has been to encourage organizational scholars to consider if not
adopt a neuroscientific perspective. To that end, we briefly presented three specific and potentially
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 1055–1059 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
1058 W. J. BECKER AND R. CROPANZANO
exciting research directions where existing neuroscientific findings can provide valuable insights into
important questions that are currently being asked by organizational behavior research. These were
only examples, as there are innumerable topics where a neuroscientific approach will have something
to contribute. We firmly believe OB scholars who embrace the brain sciences will be duly rewarded. We
also believe that this payoff goes in both directions. Increased involvement by OB scholars has the
potential to push neuroscience in profitable new directions. Researchers should see neuroscience as
another tool in the toolbox, one that complements existing methods and is mutually informative and
enriching. We are fortunate to live in a time when technological advances have opened up our
understanding of the human brain. We hope that we have shared a little of the excitement and a lot of the
potential to be found in an organizational neuroscience perspective.
Author biographies
William Becker is a doctoral student at the University of Arizona’s Eller College of Management. His
primary research interests include organizational entry/exit, group emotion, and neuroscience. His
work has been published in Personnel Psychology.
Russell Cropanzano is the Brian Lesk Professor of Organizational Behavior at the University of
Arizona’s Eller College of Management. Dr Cropanzano’s primary research areas include perceptions
of organizational justice as well as on the experience and impact of workplace emotion. He is a past
editor of the Journal of Management, and a fellow in the Society for Industrial/Organizational
Psychology and the Association for Psychological Science.
References
Camerer, C., Lowenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics.
Journal of Economic Literature,43, 9–64.
Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology,57, 345–374.
Cunningham, W. A., Zelazo, P. D., Packer, D. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2007). The iterative reprocessing model: A
multilevel framework for attitudes and evaluation. Social Cognition,25, 736–760.
Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An
integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin,132, 692–731.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. New York: Bantam Books.
Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Piecing fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research
agenda for the organizational work climate literature. Journal of Management,35, 634–717.
Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes. Annual Review of
Psychology,58, 259–289.
Matsumoto, K., & Tanaka, K. (2004). The role of the medial prefontal cortex in achieving goals. Current Opinion
in Neurobiology,14, 178–185.
Miller, E. K. (2000). The prefontal cortex and cognitive control. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,1, 59–65.
Ochsner, K. N., & Lieberman, M. D. (2001). The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. American
Psychologist,56, 717–734.
Reddish, A. D., Jensen, S., & Johnson, A. (2008). A unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision
process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,31, 415–437.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience,27, 169–192.
Rizzolatti, G., & Fabbri-Destro, M. (2008). The mirror system and its role in social cognition. Current Opinion in
Neurobiology,18, 179–184.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 1055–1059 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
ORGANIZATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE 1059
... Organizational Neuroscience (ON) is defined as, "a deliberate and judicious approach to spanning the divide between neuroscience and organizational science" (Becker & Cropanzano 2010, p. 1055. It pertains to how neuroscience can broaden the understanding of people at work as well as organizational processes (Waldman et al., 2017). ...
... Furthermore, it must be noted that eight studies in the sample were not identified as a part of any cluster. These studies include Becker and Cropanzano (2010), Calvo (2018) (2017) recommend strategic management researchers to view neuroscience as another tool in their toolbox, and on the other hand, studies like Calvo (2018) and Gardner et al. (2006) demonstrate the research and practical implications of embracing neuroscience in the management research. ...
Article
This study represents one of the earliest attempts at providing a complete scientometric mapping and a systematic review of the nascent field of neurostrategy. Machine-based algorithms and text-mining have been used to – (a) clarify the dominant concepts at the junction of neuroscience and strategic management; (b) identify the ontological and epistemological foundations of neurostrategy; (c) explain how the scholarly discourse around neurostrategy has evolved; (d) reveal the trends that are gaining traction within neurostrategy research; and (e) develop propositions at the confluence of managerial capabilities, knowledge management, dynamic capabilities, and neurostrategy. The study unveils how neurostrategy represents a quintet of disciplines and lays bare the hypes and hopes surrounding neurostrategy. The study explains how the road that leads to competitive success passes through the development of neuronally intelligent strategies that not only resolve the battle between the organization and its people, but also the one within an organizational decision maker.
... Unfolding these objectives, it is studied, for example, the management of people through a psychological perspective (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), social or philosophical (human relations and behavioral school), it is necessary to enter the concepts explored by Neuroscience to complement the existing knowledge. The purpose of this study was to deepen the discoveries of neuroscience and show how they are perceived by leaders in the behaviors of individuals inside the organizations (Becker & Cropanzano, 2010). Unfolding these objectives: a) To identify the knowledge the leaders have about Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience or Organizational Neuroscience, as well as its gaps and misrepresentations; b) To propose initiatives and actions for leaders regarding the expansion of knowledge about the aforementioned factors, c) To provide recommendations for inclusions or changes in internal and external leadership training programs for organizations on the topic of organizational cognitive neuroscience. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper analyzes the perception of leaders about the discoveries of organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN) and their practical applications in the work environment, as well as identifying gaps and distortions of knowledge that leaders have about this area of study. Based on a study with the participation of one hundred and thirty six respondents, of which part consider themselves in leadership positions, conducted in two stages, using a quantitative and qualitative method, it wa s possible to highlight the perception of such leaders about the practices currently used in their companies, even though they are unaware of the neurological factors and reflexes that trigger them. The results also made it possible to propose initiatives and actions for leaders regarding the expansion of knowledge about NCO. Finally, this research presents recommendations for including or changing internal and external leadership training programs on the topics covered in Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience.
... Explanations for a few of these challenges are provided by supporters of OCN [26] . A few other explanations still need clarification. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper discusses the dawn of cognitive neuroscience in management and organizational research. The study does that in two tiers: first, it reviews the interdisciplinary field of organizational cognitive neuroscience, and second, it analyzes the role organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN) could play in reducing counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWB). Theoretically, the literature has established the benefits of a neuro-scientific approach to understanding various organizational behaviors, but no research has been done on using organizational neuroscience techniques to study counterproductive work behaviors. This paper, however, has taken the first step towards this research avenue. The study will shed light on this interdisciplinary field of organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN) and the benefits that organizations can reap from it with respect to understanding employee behavior. A research agenda for future studies is provided to scholars who are interested in advancing the investigation of cognition in counterproductive work behaviors, also by using neuroscience techniques. The study concludes by providing evidence drawn from the literature in favor of adopting an OCN approach in organizations.
... Este estudo busca compreender a importância da sincronia entre diversas teorias -neurociência, comportamento organizacional e liderança (Okhuysen & Bonardi, 2011). Também traz novos avanços para a liderança ao identificar padrões neurais em diferentes comportamentos (Becker & Cropanzano, 2010). A relevância do estudo reside na introdução de uma estrutura para estabelecer as bases da neuroliderança como um processo de pensamento e desenvolvimento de líderes. ...
Article
Full-text available
Resumo Acadêmicos e gestores há muito discutem o melhor perfil para uma liderança bem-sucedida, que pode influenciar o desempenho dos funcionários e o crescimento organizacional. Apesar da liderança ser o foco de muitos estudos e treinamento contínuo, ainda não está claro o que explica a eficácia dos líderes dentro das instituições e empresas. Para entender melhor esse fenômeno, realizamos uma revisão abrangente de estudos empíricos e ensaios teóricos (N = 93) explorando a aplicação da neurociência nas práticas e desenvolvimento de liderança e organizacionais. Realizamos uma revisão sistemática utilizando essas referências e construímos argumentos narrativos organizando as subáreas estudadas e definindo um processo através do qual é possível classificar e integrar tendências. O estudo se diferencia de pesquisas anteriores ao identificar grupos de áreas de pesquisa como as abordagens biológica, cerebral, psicológica, gerencial, emocional e cognitiva, bem como temas de pesquisa como cultura, tomada de decisão, engajamento, ética e desenvolvimento humano. Além disso, sugerimos um referencial teórico compreendendo essas abordagens e os principais tópicos de pesquisa para estimular o avanço do campo. Este artigo contribui para a literatura organizando o estado a arte da pesquisa e apresentando a neuroliderança como um construto. Concluímos com sugestões para pesquisas futuras que esperamos abordar as lacunas existentes e contribuir para a construção de recomendações relevantes para políticas de teorias.
... This investigation explains the importance of the synchrony between various theories -neuroscience, organizational behavior, and leadership (Okhuysen & Bonardi, 2011). It also makes new advances for leadership by identifying standard neural processes in other behaviors (Becker & Cropanzano, 2010). The study's relevance lies in introducing a framework with which to establish the foundations for neuroleadership as a process for thinking and developing leaders. ...
Article
Full-text available
Scholars and managers have long discussed the best profile for successful leadership, which can influence employee performance and organizational growth. Despite leadership being the focus of many studies and continuous training, what explains leaders’ effectiveness within institutions and companies remains unclear. To better understand this phenomenon, we perform a comprehensive review of empirical studies and theoretical essays (N = 93) exploring the application of neuroscience in an organization’s practices and leaders’ development. We conducted a systematic review using these references and built narrative arguments organizing understudied areas and defining a process to classify and integrate trends. The study is different from previous research in identifying groups of research areas such as the biological, brain, psychological, management, emotional, and cognitive approaches, as well as research topics such as culture, decision-making, engagement, ethics, and human development. Moreover, we suggest a theoretical framework comprising those approaches and the main research topics to stimulate the move of the field forward. The article contributes to the literature by organizing the state of the art of research and presenting neuroleadership as a construct. We conclude with suggestions for future research that we hope will address existing gaps and contribute to building relevant theories and policy recommendations.
... At this point, the inclusion of neuroscience in MOS, while pointing to a new development process compared to other science fields, has also divided the views of researchers into the positive and negative sides of organizational neuroscience. The positive side of organizational neuroscience is defined as a biologically rooted approach that gathers neuroscience and MOS together and aims to understand brain mechanisms that affect organizational behavior and managerial relationships (Becker and Cropanzano, 2010;Senior et al., 2011;Healey and Hodgkinson, 2014). On the other side, scholars indicate that there is a problem with the inclusion of neuroscience techniques into the MOS. ...
Chapter
The world of work is transforming, driven by insights from the frontiers of science. Human resource (HR) practices are no longer limited to traditional methods and increasingly incorporate knowledge from disciplines like Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience (CBN). By understanding how our brains work, we can design HR practices that enhance employee well-being, engagement, and, ultimately, performance. Drawing from neuroscientific research on decision-making, communication, stress, learning, motivation, and workplace design, this chapter delves into the intersection of CBN and HR, offering evidence-based practices that support a thriving workforce. This interdisciplinary approach holds promise for maximizing human potential in the context of the modern workplace.
Chapter
Full-text available
This book chapter delves deep into the realm of organizational behaviour through the lenses of neuroscience, aiming to shed light on the convoluted relationship between the brain, behaviour, and organizational dynamics. The integration of neuroscience and organizational behaviour offers profound insights into understanding the underlying mechanisms driving human behaviour at the workplace. The foundation lies in establishing an extensive understanding of neuroscience principles and their relevance in shaping the organizational behaviour. Central to this exploration are the key brain areas such as the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus, each playing a prominent role in influencing employee choices, emotional responses, memory, and decision-making processes within an organizational setting. Additionally, neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin are examined for their impact on motivation, reward-seeking behaviour, mood regulation, and social interactions in the workplace. Building upon these foundational concepts, the chapter investigates the benefits of integrating neuroscience into organizational behaviour research and practice. Notably, it addresses the importance of understanding unconscious biases and their implications on decision-making processes, aiming to foster fairer and more equitable organizational environments. Moreover, the study explores how insights from neuroscience can optimize employee well-being, engagement, and workplace satisfaction by identifying neural mechanisms associated with stress, burnout, and work-life balance.
Chapter
The chapter aims to map the decisive and crucial changes that have taken place in the realm of managerial leadership, specifically in the context of concepts of neuroleadership and ethics. This chapter argues that the traditional hierarchical model, characterized by a boss and subordinates, has been replaced with a contemporary notion of a more egalitarian work environment that emphasizes the recognition and appreciation of group contributions. The chapter contends that this shift in mindset signifies a departure from traditional concepts of authority and becomes more complicated in the backdrop of neuroleadership. The prominent question arises that while neuroleadership itself caters to neither an ethical or unethical position, its objectives implicate the questions of appropriate application of empathy and cognitive justice on the part of the leaders.
Article
Full-text available
Work climates exert an important influence on organizations and the people who work in them. For more than half a century, scholars have sought to understand their antecedents and consequences. However, in recent years, this literature has become fragmented and somewhat adrift. This article attempts to remedy this by reviewing existing research related to organizational work climates and providing a review and critique of the current state of knowledge. Furthermore, the authors seek to assemble the individual pieces into a unified lens capable of identifying overarching themes and challenges facing researchers. Finally, the authors turn this lens to the future, so as to provide a clearer view of some promising avenues for research opportunities and potential for reintegrating the field.
Article
Full-text available
Dual–process models of attitudes highlight the fact that evaluative processes are complex and multifaceted. Nevertheless, many of these models typically neglect important interactions among processes that can contribute to an evaluation. In this article, we propose a multilevel model informed by neuroscience in which current evaluations are constructed from relatively stable attitude representations through the iterative reprocessing of information. Whereas initial iterations provide relatively quick and dirty evaluations, additional iterations accompanied by reflective processes yield more nuanced evaluations and allow for phenomena such as ambivalence. Importantly, this model predicts that the processes underlying relatively automatic evaluations continue to be engaged across multiple iterations, and that they influence and are influenced by more reflective processes. We describe the Iterative Reprocessing Model at the computational, algorithmic, and implementational levels of analysis (Marr, 1982) to more fully characterize its premises and predictions. Recent advances in neuroscientific methods have provided researchers with an unprecedented opportunity to examine the neural correlates of
Article
Full-text available
One of the enduring mysteries of brain function concerns the process of cognitive control. How does complex and seemingly wilful behaviour emerge from interactions between millions of neurons? This has long been suspected to depend on the prefrontal cortex — the neocortex at the anterior end of the brain — but now we are beginning to uncover its neural basis. Nearly all intended behaviour is learned and so depends on a cognitive system that can acquire and implement the 'rules of the game' needed to achieve a given goal in a given situation. Studies indicate that the prefrontal cortex is central in this process. It provides an infrastructure for synthesizing a diverse range of information that lays the foundation for the complex forms of behaviour observed in primates.
Article
Full-text available
Social cognitive neuroscience is an emerging interdisciplinary field of research that seeks to understand phenomena in terms of interactions between 3 levels of analysis: the social level, which is concerned with the motivational and social factors that influence behavior and experience; the cognitive level, which is concerned with the information-processing mechanisms that give rise to social-level phenomena; and the neural level, which is concerned with the brain mechanisms that instantiate cognitive-level processes. The social cognitive neuroscience approach entails conducting studies and constructing theories that make reference to all 3 levels and contrasts with traditional social psychological and cognitive neuroscientific research that primarily makes reference to 2 levels. The authors present an introduction to and analysis of the field by reviewing current research and providing guidelines and suggested directions for future work.
Article
Experiments in monkeys have shown that coding the goal of the motor acts is a fundamental property of the cortical motor system. In area F5, goal-coding motor neurons are also activated by observing motor acts done by others (the 'classical' mirror mechanism); in area F2 and area F1, some motor neurons are activated by the mere observation of goal-directed movements of a cursor displayed on a computer screen (a 'mirror-like' mechanism). Experiments in humans and monkeys have shown that the mirror mechanism enables the observer to understand the intention behind an observed motor act, in addition to the goal of it. Growing evidence shows that a deficit in the mirror mechanism underlies some aspects of autism.
Article
In our target article, we proposed that addiction could be envisioned as misperformance of a decision-making machinery described by two systems (deliberative and habit systems). Several commentators have argued that Pavlovian learning also produces actions. We agree and note that Pavlovian action-selection will provide several additional vulnerabilities. Several commentators have suggested that addiction arises from sociological parameters. We note in our response how sociological effects can change decision-making variables to provide additional vulnerabilities. Commentators generally have agreed that our theory provides a framework within which to site addiction and treatment, but additional work will be needed to determine whether our taxonomy will help identify and treat subpopulations within the addicted community.
Article
The understanding of decision-making systems has come together in recent years to form a unified theory of decision-making in the mammalian brain as arising from multiple, interacting systems (a planning system, a habit system, and a situation-recognition system). This unified decision-making system has multiple potential access points through which it can be driven to make maladaptive choices, particularly choices that entail seeking of certain drugs or behaviors. We identify 10 key vulnerabilities in the system: (1) moving away from homeostasis, (2) changing allostatic set points, (3) euphorigenic "reward-like" signals, (4) overvaluation in the planning system, (5) incorrect search of situation-action-outcome relationships, (6) misclassification of situations, (7) overvaluation in the habit system, (8) a mismatch in the balance of the two decision systems, (9) over-fast discounting processes, and (10) changed learning rates. These vulnerabilities provide a taxonomy of potential problems with decision-making systems. Although each vulnerability can drive an agent to return to the addictive choice, each vulnerability also implies a characteristic symptomology. Different drugs, different behaviors, and different individuals are likely to access different vulnerabilities. This has implications for an individual's susceptibility to addiction and the transition to addiction, for the potential for relapse, and for the potential for treatment.