Biology and Management: A Review, Critique, and Research Agenda

Abstract

In this article, we conduct a systematic review of the emerging literature on the biological perspective in management and investigate research spanning the areas of genetics, physiology, and neuroscience. We examine 291 papers published in 133 journals over an 85-year period as well as 10 conference/working papers and six books. On the basis of this analysis, we present an organizing framework of the area, explain the mechanisms through which biological factors relate to management, and discuss the implications of the biological perspective for the theory and the practice of management. Finally, we present an agenda highlighting avenues for future research in this field.

Full text

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
1
Biology and Management: A Review, Critique, and Research Agenda
Ahmed Maged Nofal
Warwick Business School
Nicos Nicolaou
Warwick Business School
Noni Symeonidou
Warwick Business School
Scott Shane
Weatherhead School of Management
Supplemental material for this article is available at http://jom.sagepub.com/supplemental.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the editor, Craig Wallace, and the two
anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful, supportive and developmental comments. We
would also like to thank Melina Kostoula, Manal Assal, Maged Nofal and Athanasios Siolos.
Corresponding author: Ahmed Maged Nofal, Coventry, CV4 7AL Gibbet Hill Rd., UK
Email: a.nofal.15@mail.wbs.ac.uk

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
2
ABSTRACT
In this article, we conduct a systematic review of the emerging literature on the biological
perspective in management and investigate research spanning the areas of genetics,
physiology and neuroscience. We examine 291 papers published in 133 journals over an 85-
year period, as well as ten conference/working papers and six books. Based on this analysis,
we present an organizing framework of the area, explain the mechanisms through which
biological factors relate to management, and discuss the implications of the biological
perspective for the theory and the practice of management. Finally, we present an agenda
highlighting avenues for future research in this field.
Keywords: Management; Genetics; Hormones; Physiology; Neuroscience

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
3
BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT: A REVIEW, CRITIQUE, AND RESEARCH
AGENDA
What do we know about the role of biology in management? The past decade has
witnessed a significant increase in the number of papers that address the ways that genetics,
physiology, and neuroscience affect different aspects of management. As a result, we know
far more than we once did.
However, our new knowledge is fragmented. “Much of this research has been
published in journals that management scholars do not routinely follow, and the different
studies themselves have been isolated from one another making it difficult to see the
cumulative set of findings” (Shane, 2009: 67). Moreover, empirical work on the topic can be
found across a large number of journals and in numerous subfields of management, which
makes it difficult for management scholars to see how the same theoretical patterns are
present in different subfields. Most importantly, the field of management also lacks a
systematic discussion of how these individual findings relate to a broader theoretical
perspective on how biology influences management, the different mechanisms governing
each of these biological influences, and the links between them.
In response to this gap in the literature, we have systematically reviewed 291 papers
published in 133 journals, four conference papers, six working papers, and six books/book
chapters published over the past 85 years to review and synthesize the biological perspective
in management. Based on this analysis, we present an organizing framework of this area (see
figure 1) and explain the mechanisms through which biological factors relate to management.
Our review indicates that there has been a substantial amount of research on
biological aspects of business. However, there has been little research that connects the three
main biological strands to each other and no organizing framework for this biological
perspective. Moreover, extant research does not take into account how environment and

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
4
biology jointly interact to influence management. Previous work has also neglected dynamic
considerations, as evidenced by the lack of longitudinal studies. Furthermore, our review
shows that research on the implications of the biological perspective for the practice of
management is strikingly limited.
We begin our review by providing a detailed description of our methodology and
review strategy. Then, we systematically synthesize the findings of previous studies on the
biological perspective and describe the mechanisms through which biology relates to
management. Finally, we identify avenues for future research and discuss the implications of
the biological perspective for the practice of management.
------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------
THE BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
We define the biological perspective on management as the set of studies that
examine: 1) genetic influences (Arvey, Li & Wang, 2016; Lindquist, Sol & Van Praag,
2015), 2) physiology (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008; White, Thornhill & Hampson, 2006), and 3)
neuroscience (Becker, Cropanzano & Sanfey, 2011; Waldman, Wang & Fenters, 2016a).
Taken together, these studies form the basis for a new school of thought that incorporates
human biology into explanations of management behavior (Shane, 2009).
Although the past few years have witnessed the emergence of efforts to synthesize
and review studies on each of the three subsets of biological factors, no reviews have sought
to bring those different subsets together into a broader biological perspective. Because
genetics, physiology and neuroscience jointly affect human behavior, it is important to
consider how these factors collectively influence management (Shane, 2009). By offering a
systematic review of these three areas, considering the mechanisms that govern each, and by

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
5
highlighting their effects together, we can begin to develop a comprehensive understanding
of how biology influences management.
METHODOLOGY
Our review strategy is designed to provide a systematic and explicit method for
reviewing all three biological aspects in management research. First, we identified keywords
(search terms) related to the three biological factors which we then constructed into search
strings (see table S-1 in the online appendix). Second, we followed the protocols outlined by
Tranfield, Denyer and Smart (2003) for undertaking reviews in the field of management.
Using these protocols, we searched the following databases: ProQuest, Thomson ISI Web of
Knowledge and Scopus to ensure that we uncovered all relevant work. We then reviewed all
studies published in journals listed in the ABS
1
list to identify every possible article that
might be relevant to a review of the biological perspective on management.
While we began our effort to find articles written since 1900, the first article we found
was that of Carter (1932) on the possible influences of genes on occupational choices. We
included all articles written through the end of March 2017, the stop point for our study. We
exported all the papers to Endnote where the studies were screened using title and abstract
analysis to identify every paper that might be relevant to our topic. This effort yielded a total
of 335 articles and one book chapter. Of these articles, 164 were then excluded according to
our exclusion criteria (see table S-2 in the online appendix) leaving us with a total of 171
articles and one book chapter.
We then employed a backward and forward snowballing procedure by manually
searching the reference lists of all included studies. This additional procedure increased the
number of articles by 51 journal papers, 2 books, 2 conference papers and 1 working paper.
These journal articles were also screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria
using a title and abstract analysis. By following this approach, our review was not limited to

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
6
specific journals or authors who publish in this area, but included all articles cited by or
which cited work in this area. This procedure is a precondition for a complete and exhaustive
summary of the literature (Tranfield et al., 2003).
Finally, to ensure that we did not miss any articles, we included several papers based
on experts’ opinions. We showed our list of articles to three experts in the field and asked
them to identify any papers that our procedure had failed to identify. This additional step
yielded 5 more papers on genetics, 41 on physiology and 23 on neuroscience. It also provided
two conference papers, 5 additional working papers, and 3 book chapters/books. After
validating the search criteria against the retrieved papers, our overall search yielded a total
number of 291 published journal articles, 4 conference papers, 6 working papers and 6
books/book chapters (see table 1).
------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
------------------------------
RESULTS
The results of our review show that the biological perspective has been studied in a
number of subfields of management (see table S-3 in the online appendix). We show key
journals contributing to the review in terms of their coverage of this area in figure S-1 in the
online appendix. The review shows that 56% of the studies are empirical and 44% are
conceptual. The majority of retrieved articles focused on neuroscience (115 papers), followed
by physiology (109 papers), and genetics (77 papers). There are also two book chapters
focusing on neuroscience, two book chapters as well as a full book investigating the role of
genetics in management and one book examining the different biological predispositions to
organizational behavior.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
7
Findings of Genetics
A large number of the studies on the biological perspective focused on the role of
genetics in management. In this review, we define research on genetics as the set of studies
that examine the influence of factors that “are encoded in DNA and transmitted biologically”
(Nicolaou & Shane, 2009: 2) on management behavior. Management scholars have sought to
examine the genetic predispositions to management through two methods: (1) a quantitative
genetics approach and (2) a molecular genetics approach. Our review shows that 77 percent
of the genetics studies in management took a quantitative genetics approach, while 23 percent
adopted a molecular genetics approach.
Quantitative genetics. The quantitative genetics approach identifies the relative
proportion of the variance in a variable and the covariance between multiple variables that
can be attributed to genetic and environmental differences (Plomin, DeFries, Knopik &
Neiderhiser, 2012). With this approach, researchers have been able to disentangle the
contributions of genes and environment across a wide variety of organizational phenotypes
using experiments of nature, specifically studies of twins, and experiments of nurture,
particularly studies of adoptees (Shane & Nicolaou, 2015a). In addition, this approach has
recently started to examine how the relative contributions of genetic and environmental
factors can change over time (Arvey et al., 2016; Li, Stanek, Zhang, Ones & McGue, 2016b).
The classical twin design compares the phenotypic resemblance between pairs of
monozygotic and dizygotic twins to examine whether the phenotype is heritable (Polderman
et al., 2015). A failure to detect differences between monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs’
resemblance in a phenotype would indicate that genetic factors do not play any role in
explaining the variance of this phenotype. But if the resemblance between monozygotic twins
is higher than the resemblance between dizygotic twins, then genetic factors influence this
phenotype (Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas, Hunkin & Spector, 2008a). This natural experiment

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
8
draws on the fact that monozygotic twins are developed from one ovum fertilized by one
sperm, unlike dizygotic twins who are developed from two ova fertilized by two different
sperms. As a result, monozygotic twins are genetically identical and dizygotic twins share, on
average, 50% of their segregating genetic makeup (Plomin et al., 2012).
Studies of adopted children also enable researchers to examine the heritability of
organizational phenotypes. Adopted children carry the genes of their biological parents and
are exposed to the environment of their adoptive parents. The phenotypic resemblance
between children and their two sets of parents indicates the extent to which this phenotype is
inherited. If there is a phenotypic resemblance between children and their biological parents,
then genetic factors influence this phenotype. Meanwhile, if there is a phenotypic
resemblance between the children and their adoptive parents, then environmental factors
affect this phenotype. By comparing both correlations, researchers can examine the extent to
which genetic and environmental factors influence management phenotypes.
Twin studies have demonstrated that there are genetic predispositions to numerous
management phenotypes, such as the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship (Nicolaou et al.,
2008a; Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas & Spector, 2009; Shane, Nicolaou, Cherkas & Spector,
2010b; Zhang et al., 2009b), opportunity recognition (Nicolaou et al., 2009; Shane, Nicolaou,
Cherkas & Spector, 2010a), leadership role occupancy (Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang &
McGue, 2006; Arvey, Zhang, Avolio & Krueger, 2007; Johnson, Vernon, McCarthy, Molson,
Harris & Jang, 1998; Li, Arvey, Zhang & Song, 2012), leadership emergence (Chaturvedi,
Zyphur, Arvey, Avolio & Larsson, 2012; Ilies, Gerhardt & Le, 2004), transformational
leadership (Chaturvedi, Arvey, Zhang & Christoforou, 2011), job demands, job control,
social support at work, job complexity (Li, Zhang, Song & Arvey, 2016a), behavioral
anomalies (Cesarini, Johannesson, Magnusson & Wallace, 2012), income (Zyphur, Li,
Zhang, Arvey & Barsky, 2015) and job satisfaction (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal & Abraham,

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
9
1989; Hahn, Gottschling, König & Spinath, 2016; Ilies & Judge, 2003; Judge, Ilies & Zhang,
2012) (see figure S-2 in the online appendix). Three studies used samples of adoptees to
show the heritability of an organizational phenotype: vocational interests (Betsworth et al.,
1994), occupational status (Scarr & Weinberg, 1994), and entrepreneurial tendencies
(Lindquist et al., 2015).
The findings of the quantitative genetics research have shown that genetic factors can
explain, on average, the variances of organizational phenotypes in a range from 20 percent to
60 percent. In addition, most of the work suggests that shared environmental factors
(environmental influences that twins in the same family have in common) account for
negligible amounts of variances in organizational phenotypes, unlike unique environmental
factors (environmental effects that differ from one twin to another) which were found
consistently to be very influential. Simply put, the most important factor affecting the
organizational phenotypes that people display is the non-shared environment, followed by
their genetics.
Although studies of twins and adoptees have been successful in revealing the genetic
influences on organizational phenotypes, these methods do not detect the specific genetic
variants that contribute to the variations in these phenotypes. For that researchers must
conduct molecular genetics studies.
Molecular genetics. The molecular genetics approach provides two powerful
methods for identifying the specific genetic variants that influence organizational
phenotypes: candidate-gene and genome-wide association (GWA) methods. The candidate
gene approach is a hypothesis-driven design in which certain genes are, a priori, hypothesized
to influence the variable under examination. Candidate-gene studies propose that a particular
gene influences management based on its function. For instance, if genes influence certain
physiological patterns associated with management phenotypes, researchers can hypothesize

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
10
that these predictor genes can affect their associated management phenotypes (Munafò,
2006).
Studies using the candidate-gene method have shown that the dopamine receptor
genes are associated with entrepreneurship (Nicolaou, Shane, Adi, Mangino & Harris, 2011),
leadership (Li, Wang, Arvey, Soong, Saw & Song, 2015), job changes (Chi, Li, Wang &
Song, 2016), job satisfaction (Song, Li & Arvey, 2011), and exploration and exploitation
(Frank, Doll, Oas-Terpstra & Moreno, 2009). Further evidence has also shown that the
serotonin transporter genes are associated with corporate corruption (Kong, 2014) and job
satisfaction (Song et al., 2011). The long-repeat polymorphism of the AVPR1a RS3
microsatellite was also associated with entrepreneurship (Wernerfelt, Rand, Dreber,
Montgomery & Malhotra, 2012).
On the other hand, the genome-wide approach is a hypothesis-free design that
involves investigating the entire genome (Koellinger et al., 2010; Yeo, 2011). It uses
microarrays to genotype millions of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on small chips
in order to locate the genetic variants influencing organizational phenotypes (Plomin et al.,
2012; Shane & Nicolaou, 2015a).
Increasingly, researchers are turning to genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to
identify the genetic variants affecting management (Koellinger et al., 2010; Quaye, Nicolaou,
Shane & Mangino, 2012b; van der Loos, Koellinger, Groenen & Thurik, 2010; van der Loos
et al., 2013) because genetic research has shown that (1) GWAS are better than candidate-
gene studies in detecting very small effect size genes expected for complex phenotypes in
management without pre-hypotheses, and (2) they perform better in dealing with the
polygenic nature of management phenotypes, where most phenotypes are influenced by a
large number of genes rather than by a single gene. For example, in a GWAS, researchers
have found an association between the rs10791283 of the OPCML gene on chromosome

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
11
11q25 and entrepreneurship at the 6 X 10-7 genome-wide significance level, which did not
reach the 10-8 level of significance required for GWAS (Quaye et al., 2012b).
The molecular genetic studies show that organizational phenotypes are both polygenic
and pleiotropic (Song, Li & Wang, 2015). Polygenic means that a very large number of genes
are required to influence an organizational phenotype. For example, Belsky et al. (2016)
found that polygenic scores derived from a GWAS predicted economic outcomes. Pleiotropic
means that the same gene that influences one variable may also influence another; e.g.
serotonin transporter genes have been associated with both job satisfaction (Song et al., 2011)
and corporate corruption (Kong, 2014). .
Findings of Physiology
The second strand of the biological perspective has examined the role of physiology
in management. Physiology is “the study of the normal functioning of a living organism and
its component parts, including all its chemical and physical processes” (Silverthorn, 2001: 2)
2
. In this review, we define research on physiology as the set of studies that examine the
relationship between hormones, physical characteristics, medical conditions and dimensions
of management. The systematic review has retrieved a total of 109 papers on physiology and
3 books/book chapters.
Hormones. The first stream of research in the physiology strand has examined the
influence of hormones in management. The most common hormones investigated in the
social sciences include: (1) testosterone, (2) dopamine, (3) oxytocin, (4) serotonin and (5)
cortisol (Narayanan & Prasad, 2015). However, within the field of management, empirical
studies have only looked at two of these five hormones: 25 studies examined testosterone,
while 12 studies have looked at cortisol
3
. This research has found significant associations
between testosterone and numerous organizational phenotypes, such as entrepreneurial
intention (Bönte, Procher & Urbig, 2015), self-employment (Greene, Han, Martin, Zhang &

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
12
Wittert, 2014; Nicolaou, Patel & Wolfe, in press; White et al., 2006), earnings (Gielen,
Holmes & Myers, 2016), leaders' corruption (Bendahan, Zehnder, Pralong & Antonakis,
2015), entrepreneurial performance (Unger, Rauch, Narayanan, Weis & Frese, 2009; Unger,
Rauch, Weis & Frese, 2015), perceived empathic accuracy (Ronay & Carney, 2013) and firm
performance (Trahms, Coombs & Barrick, 2010) (see figure S-3 in the online appendix).
These findings reveal that testosterone is an important, but often overlooked, factor in
explaining power and status in organizations, by driving people’s need to acquire additional
resources and by stimulating competitive and retaliatory behaviors (Narayanan & Prasad,
2015).
Prior studies have also found a positive relationship between cortisol and work stress
(Karlson, Eek, Hansen, Garde & Ørbaek, 2011), and a negative relationship between cortisol
and leader’s position (Sherman et al., 2012) as well as attained status in male executives
(Sherman, Lerner, Josephs, Renshon & Gross, 2016). The influence of cortisol is “a double-
edged sword” in the sense that cortisol may impair people’s ability to perform and attenuate
overall organizational effectiveness, but at the same time increase the likelihood that people
attain leadership positions (Diebig, Bormann & Rowold, 2016: 684). Indeed, cortisol research
has been rich in providing explanations about how managers handle stress in organizations
and why some leaders perform better than others (Diebig et al., 2016; Mehta & Josephs,
2010).
While no research in management has examined the association between management
and oxytocin, dopamine or serotonin, some studies have suggested potential relationships.
For instance, oxytocin has been associated with self-esteem (Saphire-Bernstein, Way, Kim,
Sherman & Taylor, 2011), which is a key predictor of several management phenotypes
(Arora, Haynie & Laurence, 2013; Judge & Bono, 2001), including entrepreneurship and job
satisfaction. In another example, dopamine has been associated with sensation seeking

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
13
(Nicolaou et al., 2011), which is associated with entrepreneurship (Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas
& Spector, 2008b).
Physical characteristics. The second stream of research in the physiology strand has
examined the role of physical characteristics in management. Physical characteristics include
“height, weight, physique, athletic, prowess, energy and energy level” (Arvey, Wang, Song &
Li, 2014: 12). The systematic review has retrieved 33 empirical papers and 10 conceptual
papers linking physical characteristics to management.
Empirical evidence has shown that physical characteristics including physical
attractiveness and facial cues influence management phenotypes, such as entrepreneurial
performance (Baron, Markman & Bollinger, 2006) and leadership (Alrajih & Ward, 2014;
Doll et al., 2014; Little, 2014; Little, Burriss, Jones & Roberts, 2007; Re, DeBruine, Jones &
Perrett, 2013; Re & Perrett, 2014). Researchers have also found a relationship between body
weight (Agerstrom & Rooth, 2011; Cawley, 2004; Re, Dzhelyova, Holzleitner, Tigue,
Feinberg & Perrett, 2012) and voice (Klofstad, Anderson & Nowicki, 2015; Klofstad,
Anderson & Peters, 2012; Klofstad, Nowicki & Anderson, 2016) and various organizational
phenotypes. For instance, Re et al. (2012) found that there is a negative relationship between
leadership and body weight, explaining that a higher body mass index (BMI) raises negative
perceptions about leaders’ abilities which in turn influences their leadership. Klofstad et al.
(2015) found that individuals with lower-pitched voices are perceived as strong, competent,
and having high physical prowess and thus more likely to be selected as leaders than their
counterparts.
The most studied physical characteristics were facial cues (19 studies) followed by
body weight (7 studies). Facial cues and attractiveness were frequently related to leadership
(Alrajih & Ward, 2014; Little, 2014; Little et al., 2007; Olivola, Eubanks & Lovelace, 2014),
while body weight was related to hiring, earnings and leadership. Other work has linked

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
14
management-related phenotypes, including employment, leadership and job satisfaction to
mouth width (1 study), body image (1 study), skin color (2 studies), voice pitch (2 studies)
and height (3 studies).
Medical conditions. The third stream of research in the physiology strand has
examined the role of medical conditions in management, including cardiovascular factors,
diabetes and musculoskeletal conditions. The systematic review has retrieved 20 empirical
and 9 conceptual papers. For instance, blood pressure (Ganster & Rosen, 2013; Ilies,
Dimotakis & Watson, 2010; Lundberg & Frankenhaeuser, 1999; Melin, Lundberg, Soderlund
& Granqvist, 1999), cardiovascular problems (Ganster, Fox & Dwyer, 2001; Ganster &
Rosen, 2013; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1979; Schaubroeck, Ganster & Kemmerer, 1994;
Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997; Steffy & Jones, 1988), pain fluctuations (Christian, Eisenkraft
& Kapadia, 2014) and musculoskeletal disorders (Manville, Akremi, Niezborala &
Mignonac, 2016) were associated with workload, work stress and other occupational
outcomes.
The most studied medical conditions were heart problems (20 studies), which were
mostly associated with occupational and workplace factors. Other work has linked
management-related phenotypes to diabetes (2 studies), occupational injuries (1 study), and
musculoskeletal disorders (1 study). In combination, these findings reveal the role of medical
conditions in influencing several work outcomes, including career choices, workload, job
satisfaction and income.
Findings of Neuroscience
The third strand of the biological perspective focuses on the relationship between
neuroscience and management (Hannah, Balthazard, Waldman, Jennings & Thatcher, 2013;
Waldman, Balthazard & Peterson, 2011). This strand examines “how neuroscience can
broaden our understanding of people at work and organizing processes” (Waldman, Ward &

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
15
Becker, 2016b: 9.2). “It involves the study of processes within the brain that underlie or
influence human decisions, behaviors, and interactions either (a) within organizations or (b)
in response to organizational manifestations or institutions.” (Butler & Senior, 2007; Ward,
Volk & Becker, 2015: 19). This is the most prominent area of the biological perspective as
evidenced by the number of studies identified in our review (115 papers).
Although scholars in entrepreneurship (de Holan, 2013; Nicolaou & Shane, 2013),
leadership (Hannah et al., 2013), human resource management (Becker, Volk & Ward, 2015)
and other management areas (Becker et al., 2011; Butler, O'Broin, Lee & Senior, 2016) have
started to recognize the value of neuro-scientific methods to organizational disciplines, it is
surprising that we know very little about the role of neuroscience in management, as the
literature is mainly conceptual: out of the 115 retrieved studies, we found 25 empirical
articles incorporating neuroscience into management research.
Nevertheless, the empirical papers do show some patterns. Researchers have found
that people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
4
(Thurik, Khedhaouria,
Torrès & Verheul, 2016; Verheul, Block, Burmeister-Lamp, Thurik, Tiemeier & Turturea,
2015; Verheul, Rietdijk, Block, Franken, Larsson & Thurik, 2016; Wiklund, Patzelt &
Dimov, 2016) and dyslexia (Logan, 2009) have a higher tendency to engage in
entrepreneurial activities.
Other empirical studies have shown several associations between neurological
activations in the brain and management. For instance, Dulebohn, Davison, Lee, Conlon,
McNamara and Sarinopoulos (2016) found that the activations of the insula, ventral striatum,
ventromedial prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex regions of the brain are
associated with procedural justice, while the activations of the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex
and the precuneus/posterior cingulate regions are related to distributive justice, with these
findings varying from males to females.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
16
In leadership, Waldman et al. (2011) found that the right frontal coherence is
associated with the formation of a socialized visionary communication, which in turn builds
followers’ perceptions of the leader’s inspirational capabilities. In another leadership study,
Boyatzis et al. (2012) found that recalling experiences with resonant leaders was associated
with the activation of regions such as the bilateral insula, right inferior parietal lobe, and left
superior temporal gyrus, while recalling experiences with dissonant leaders limited the
activations of the right anterior cingulate cortex and positively activated the right inferior
frontal gyrus, bilateral posterior region of the inferior frontal gyrus, and bilateral inferior
frontal gyrus/insula. Other qEEG findings have shown that being exposed to an inspirational
leader activates the bilateral rostral inferior parietal lobule, pars opercularis, and posterior
midcingulate cortex, while being exposed to a non-inspirational leader activates the medial
prefrontal cortex (Molenberghs, Prochilo, Steffens, Zacher & Haslam, 2015).
Researchers have also demonstrated that the lateral occipital cortex, superior temporal
cortex, medial parietal, subgenual cingulate, nucleus accumbens, and left lateral prefrontal
cortex are activated by affect that may be provided by inspirational coaching and mentoring
(Jack, Boyatzis, Khawaja, Passarelli & Leckie, 2013). Hannah et al. (2013) also found that a
lower level of EEG coherence in the alpha frequency range in the frontal lobes is associated
with greater adaptive decision-making, suggesting that both the frontal lobes in the brain and
the adaptive decision-making are related to leader self-complexity. Other evidence has shown
a significant correlation between job demand and oxygenated hemoglobin changes in the left
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in females, while greater changes in the right temporal cortex
were observed among males (Kawasaki et al., 2015). Moreover, Waldman, Wang, Hannah
and Balthazard (in press) found that the interaction of leader relativism and idealism partially
mediates the influence of the brains’ default mode network on ethical leadership.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
17
In entrepreneurship, using fMRI, researchers found that entrepreneurs showed higher
decision-making efficiency, and a stronger activation in regions of frontopolar cortex than
managers (Laureiro-Martinez et al., 2014). Activations of the ventral tegmental area,
substantia nigra, ventral striatum, nucleus accumbens, and ventro medial prefrontal cortex
brain regions were associated with exploration. On the other hand, activations of the
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, locus coeruleus-norepinephrine circuit, frontopolar cortex and
inferior parietal lobule were associated with exploitation (Laureiro-Martínez, Brusoni,
Canessa & Zollo, 2015).
MECHANISMS
In this section, we explain the mechanisms through which biological factors may
affect management: direct effects, mediation through psychological factors and attitudes,
biology X environment interactions, biology X environment correlations, interactions within
biological strands and interactions between biological strands. The overall pattern is
presented in figure 2.
------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
------------------------------
1. Direct Effects
Biology may directly influence management. For instance, blood pressure problems,
increased heart rate, immune system disorders and coronary heart diseases may result in poor
productivity and high job turnover rates (Ganster & Rosen, 2013; Zhang & Zyphur, 2015).
Evidence also indicates that genetic factors may act as antecedents to other biological factors
that influence management. Nicolaou and Shane (2009) argued that genetic factors may
affect hormones, brain functions, and appearance, which in turn influence management. For

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
18
instance, researchers have suggested that genetically influenced testosterone may influence
the tendency of people to engage in entrepreneurship (Shane & Nicolaou, 2015a; White et al.,
2006; Zhang & Zyphur, 2015). In physiology, Zhang and Zyphur (2015) have indicated that
variations in hormone levels are related to cardiovascular processes and changes in the
functioning of the immune system which may affect work outcomes, such as burnout and
productivity.
2. Mediation through Psychological factors and attitudes
Biology may influence management through psychological factors and attitudes. In
genetics, research has shown that genes may influence entrepreneurship, leadership,
vocational interests, work values, job switching, and job satisfaction by affecting individual
attributes, such as psychological traits, attitudes, and preferences (Arvey et al., 2016; Shane
& Nicolaou, 2015a). Numerous studies have shown that neuroticism, extraversion,
conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness (Shane et al., 2010a, b; Zhang et
al., 2009b), proactivity (Li, 2011), rule breaking (Li et al., 2015) and cognitive abilities
(Arvey et al., 2006; Chaturvedi et al., 2011; Schermer, Johnson, Jang & Vernon, 2015; Shane
& Nicolaou, 2015b) mediated the relationships between genes and organizational
phenotypes.
In physiology, researchers have suggested, for instance, that hormones may influence
people’s attitudes toward competition, fairness, and trust which in turn affect organizational
decision making (Narayanan & Prasad, 2015). There is also some evidence that hormones
affect people’s choice to become entrepreneurs. White et al. (2006) found that testosterone
influences the tendency of individuals to become self-employed through risk taking. In line
with this evidence, Bönte et al. (2015) indicated that the relationship between prenatal
testosterone exposure and entrepreneurial intention is mediated by both general risk-taking
and domain specific risk taking (e.g. professional career and financial investment).

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
19
Consistently, researchers have shown that positive affect mediates the effect of
entrepreneurs’ physical attractiveness on the evaluation of their ideas (Baron et al., 2006).
Similarly, several scholars have found that facial cues influence people’s beliefs which in
turn affect leadership choice, and occupational success. For instance, Little (2014) suggested
that leaders are partly chosen based on their faces as people believe that certain facial cues
reflect specific abilities that are well suited for particular leading positions.
In neuroscience, Hannah et al. (2013) have suggested that the influence of the frontal
lobes of the brain on leadership adaptability may be mediated by leaders’ psychological self-
complexity. In another recent qEEG study, Waldman et al. (in press) found that the role of
brains’ default mode network in predicting ethical leadership may be mediated by the
interaction of leader relativism and idealism.
3. Biology X Environment interactions
The biological influence on management may be contingent on the presence of
environmental factors. In genetics, research has labeled this pathway as gene X environment
interaction (Rowe, 2003). Researchers, for instance, have found that genetic factors interact
with social environment to influence the tendency of people to occupy leadership roles
(Zhang, Ilies & Arvey, 2009a) and that unfavorable family environment in childhood lowers
the genetic influence on entrepreneurship in adulthood (Zhang & Ilies, 2010). Chi et al.
(2016) have also demonstrated that early life environments and dopamine genes interact to
influence later job changes. Findings indicate that in gene X environment interaction studies,
education, family and social environment as well as socioeconomic status interacted with
genetic factors to influence various management-related phenotypes, including
entrepreneurship (Quaye, Nicolaou, Shane & Harris, 2012a), job changes (Chi et al., 2016)
and leadership (Zhang & Ilies, 2010; Zhang et al., 2009a).

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
20
In physiology, research has indicated, for instance, that the interaction between
chronic pain and perceived organizational support influences citizenship behavior, work
intensity and effectiveness as well as task performance (Byrne & Hochwarter, 2006).
Specifically, higher levels of perceived organizational support decreased the adverse
influences of chronic pain on occupational performance.
4. Biology X Environment correlation
Researchers have suggested that biology may play a role in people selecting particular
environments that in turn influence their behavior. This implies that the environment that
people face is partly endogenously influenced by their biology. In genetics, this mechanism is
called gene X environment correlation (Nicolaou & Shane, 2009). There are three main types
of gene X environment correlations: passive, evocative and active (Plomin et al., 2012; Shane
& Nicolaou, 2015a). A passive gene X environment correlation occurs when people are
exposed to inherited environments that are compatible with their genetic makeup. This
correlation may lead to an association between genetic and environmental factors which in
turn influence various organizational phenotypes. For example, a person with “leadership
genes” would be more likely to have parents who would provide both the genes and an
environment that is supportive of leadership.
An evocative gene X environment correlation suggests that people may evoke
reactions from other people on the basis of their genetic tendencies. For instance, people with
genes that predispose them to leadership may evoke more positive reactions from people
looking for others to lead various projects and organizations.
An active gene X environment correlation demonstrates that people may select or
create environments that are compatible with their genetic makeup. For example, a person

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
21
with genes that predispose them to leadership may engage in situations where leadership is
required, and develop leadership capabilities through acting as a leader.
Although researchers have explained that genetic and environmental factors may
correlate to influence management (Arvey et al., 2016; Lykken, Bouchard, McGue &
Tellegen, 1993; Nicolaou & Shane, 2009; Shane & Nicolaou, 2015a), only one study has
found evidence for this mechanism (see table S-4 in online appendix). Specifically, Li et al.
(2016a) have suggested that, over time, individuals are gravitated to jobs with specific
environmental conditions to satisfy their genetic makeup.
In physiology, current evidence suggests that environmental factors, particularly job
demands and job controls, play a mediating role in the association between individuals’
physiological well-being (i.e. cortisol and cortisone hormone levels as well as cardiovascular
problems) and leadership role occupancy (Li & Xie, 2013).
5. Interactions within Biological strands
The existing literature has also revealed evidence for interactions within biological
strands, such as interactions between genes - a mechanism that researchers have labeled gene
X gene interactions (Polderman et al., 2015), interactions between hormones – a mechanism
labeled hormone X hormone interactions, and interactions between different brain regions.
Research, for instance, has suggested that genes may jointly interact to influence
management outcomes such as job satisfaction (Song et al., 2011). Researchers have also
shown that cortisol and testosterone jointly interact to influence attained status in male
executives (Sherman et al., 2016). In another study, Mehta and Josephs (2010) indicated that
high levels of cortisol diminish the influence of testosterone on dominance. Moreover,
neuroscience studies have also found that the interactions between the orbitofrontal cortex,
the anterior cingulate cortex, and the locus coeruleus may modulate attention, which

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
22
influences exploration and exploitation decisions (Aston-Jones & Cohen, 2005; Laureiro-
Martínez, Brusoni & Zollo, 2010).
6. Interactions between Biological strands
Different biological strands may also interact to influence management. Epigenetics
demonstrates that biological and environmental stimuli may modify genes transcription.
Studies have suggested that biological factors, such as hormones and neuroscience, may play
a key interactive role in the modification of such genes (Caspi & Moffitt, 2006; Zhang &
Meaney, 2010). However, we did not find any studies examining epigenetics in management.
Frank et al. (2009) have also suggested that the dopaminergic genes interact with the
prefrontal cortex region of the brain to influence individuals’ exploration and exploitation
decisions. This relationship is mediated in two steps, first, by the interaction between the
stratium region of the brain and reinforcement learning environments and, then, the dopamine
hormone which influences exploration and exploitation. Thus, different mechanisms can
jointly shape managerial behavior.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Our organizing framework (figure 1) highlights the three strands of the biological
perspective, shows the constituents of each, and maps the distribution of studies across them.
Importantly, this review uncovers several mechanisms (figure 2) through which biology
influences management. However, we argue that, to fulfill the potential of this perspective,
all aspects must be integrated, something that has not happened to date. As we mentioned, the
mechanisms explaining these relationships suggest that biological factors are not mutually
exclusive and the mechanisms that govern the influence of one biological factor on
management involve other biological factors.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
23
Our review reveals that genetic factors explain more than one-third of the variance in
many phenotypes, such as work values (Arvey, McCall, Bouchard, Taubman & Cavanaugh,
1994), creativity (Shane & Nicolaou, 2015b), job switching (McCall, Cavanaugh, Arvey &
Taubman, 1997), transactional leadership (Johnson et al., 1998) and the propensity to engage
in entrepreneurship (Nicolaou et al., 2008a). The genetic influences are both polygenic and
pleiotropic, and the influence of a single genetic polymorphism is very small, reflecting the
complex architecture of management phenotypes.
To date, physiological variables have played a peripheral role in the study of
management (Zhang & Zyphur, 2015) but as Heaphy and Dutton (2008) argue, management
research that does not take into account the role of physiology is incomplete. However,
relatively few physiological characteristics and relatively few outcomes have been explored.
In addition, the majority of studies in the hormones stream of research have focused on the
effects of just one hormone, testosterone, with relatively fewer studies examining the effects
of cortisol. Furthermore, there have been no studies examining the effects of oxytocin,
serotonin, or dopamine.
A small literature now shows that brain function is associated with managerial
behavior, as demonstrated by neuroscience studies in leadership, decision-making,
entrepreneurship, and work stress. Studies have also examined the influence of ADHD and
dyslexia on managerial outcomes. While relatively few aspects of management have been
explored empirically, with leadership being the most prevalent, this literature has provided a
“theoretical basis as to the choice of neurological variables that one might incorporate” in the
study of neuroscience and management (Waldman et al., 2016b: 9.13).
The lack of research in this area is puzzling. We are all biological creatures and our
biology affects all aspects of our behavior, including our work. By ignoring our biology,

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
24
management researchers are missing an important part of the explanation for managerial
behavior.
The biological perspective has several theoretical implications. It improves our
understanding of how biological factors moderate the influence of environmental factors in
influencing work outcomes. It extends existing theories in organizational behavior by
identifying how psychological traits and attitudes mediate the influence of biology. It also
enhances our understanding of the antecedents of environmental factors, by showing that
these are often biologically influenced, a finding called nature of nurture (Arvey et al., 2016;
Plomin & Bergeman, 1991).
The biological perspective has some important implications for the practice of
management. The biological perspective may affect career coaching and may help
organizations provide individualized practices suited to the different distinctive abilities of
their personnel (Arvey et al., 2016; Lawler, 1974; Rousseau, 2005). For instance, drawing on
the finding that ADHD has a positive influence on entrepreneurial activities, organizations
may encourage people with ADHD to pursue such careers.
The biological perspective may also deliver insights to policy makers by revealing the
environmental factors moderating the biological influences on management. Understanding
those factors would allow policy makers to know how to reinforce positive interactions and
minimize negative ones.
In addition, by knowing the architecture of physiological conditions, organizations
may change various job features to diminish any negative influences at work. For instance,
because high workloads increase cardiovascular risks in employees, it might be valuable to
identify the job features that attenuate the negative influences of high workloads (Ilies,
Dimotakis & De Pater, 2010). This line of research would also have the potential to answer
various enquiries in the occupational health and safety literature, such as “the links between

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
25
occupational health and safety and human resource strategies” (Zanko & Dawson, 2012:
340).
The biological perspective may also provide organizations with strategies to
maximize corporate venturing activities. For example, researchers found that genetic factors
account for 82 percent of the covariance between creativity and the tendency towards
entrepreneurship (Shane & Nicolaou, 2015b) and 46% of the covariance between sensation
seeking and the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship (Nicolaou et al., 2008b). As
environmental factors account for a greater part of the covariance between sensation seeking
and entrepreneurship than between creativity and entrepreneurship (e.g. 54% and 18%
respectively), efforts to influence sensation seeking would be more effective than efforts to
influence creativity in affecting entrepreneurship.
However, several challenges face this area of research. These include (1) the
challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research (Bromham, Dinnage & Hua, 2016), (2)
the difficulties of generating heritability estimates in the presence of gene-environment
interactions and correlations (Arvey et al., 2016), (3) small effect sizes, (4) endogeneity issues,
(5) experimental conditions in neuroscientific experiments, and (6) issues of reverse inference
in fMRI studies (Poldrack, 2006). Scholars will need to address these issues in their study
designs to move our collective understanding of the biological influences on management
forward.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Our review suggests several areas for future research. First, more explanatory factors
and more outcome variables should be examined empirically. The review shows that research
in this area is characterized by being highly conceptual with limited empirical evidence. It is
time to further this area of research by conducting more empirical studies.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
26
Second, it is unlikely that much managerial behavior is explained solely by human
biology. Because most managerial behavior is likely accounted for by the interaction of
human biology and environmental factors, additional research should empirically investigate
how environment and biology interplay to influence management. Although research has
suggested plausible mechanisms through which these factors jointly influence management,
we have little empirical evidence of those interactions.
Third, biological factors are not mutually exclusive and may jointly interact to
influence management behavior. Future research should explore those interactions. For
example, future research should consider how hormones mediate genetic predispositions and
in turn trigger physiological effects to influence management. Similarly, studies should
explore how genes interact with environmental factors, such as occupational threat,
stimulating the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis to trigger the stress hormone “cortisol,”
which, in turn, may affect managerial outcomes, such as leadership. Finally, future genetics
work should draw from neuroscience research for the formulation of gene-environment
interaction hypotheses (Caspi & Moffitt, 2006).
Fourth, additional research on the psychological factors and attitudes that mediate the
relationship between biology (genetics, physiology and neuroscience) and management is
encouraged. Additional mediators can advance our understanding of the theoretical
mechanisms through which the influence of biological factors on management is manifested.
Fifth, researchers should incorporate epigenetics into the study of the biological
perspective. Numerous epigenetics mechanisms have been uncovered over the past decade,
such as DNA methylation, DNA hydroxymethylation, and histone modifications like
acetylation, phosphorylation, and sumoylation (Zhang & Meaney, 2010). These mechanisms
reveal that environmental factors may alter people’s genetic, physiological and neurological
factors.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
27
Sixth, researchers should think about the effects of biological factors more
dynamically. In this domain, few longitudinal studies have been conducted. Longitudinal
studies would reveal how biological influences can change over time. For instance, genetic
influences on leadership could change with age, given evidence of age-related changes in the
heritability of job satisfaction (Li et al., 2016b) and other behavioral measures in the sciences
(Bergen, Gardner & Kendler, 2007).
Additional research pertaining to each area is also needed. For example, in genetics,
we encourage further research using bivariate and multivariate genetic techniques that
explore shared genetic influences between management-related phenotypes. Genome-wide
association studies using very large samples are also needed to advance molecular genetic
research in management. Nuclear twin family models, which are an improvement over the
classical twin model as they incorporate more family information about twins, their parents,
and siblings, are also encouraged, as they can provide more accurate parameters for the
decomposition of genetic and environmental influences (Zyphur, Zhang, Barsky & Li, 2013).
Studies identifying gene-environment correlations in organizational settings are also needed.
In physiology, research is needed to empirically examine the influence of oxytocin,
dopamine, serotonin, and melatonin, as studies in management have only examined
empirically the role of testosterone and cortisol. Additional work is also needed to examine
how hormones interact with each other, such as the dual hormone hypothesis that emphasized
the combined effects of testosterone and cortisol in regulating dominance (Mehta and
Josephs, 2010). Future work could also examine physiological responses at the group level,
while additional research is required to examine how organizational interventions can
moderate the influence of physiological processes on managerial outcomes.
In neuroscience, future research should also incorporate neuroscience techniques into
the study of teams. As management outcomes are highly dependent on interactions between

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
28
individuals, researchers are encouraged to use neuroscience techniques, such as qEEG, to
examine interactions between employees, such as interpersonal conflicts and
negative/positive affect (Waldman et al., 2016b).
Further research pertaining to each management area including entrepreneurship and
organizational behavior is also urged. For instance, in entrepreneurship, work employing a
biological perspective is needed to examine topics such as entrepreneurial biases (Zhang &
Cueto, 2017: 2), fear of failure (Cacciotti, Hayton, Mitchell & Giazitzoglu, 2016), and
entrepreneurs’ thinking styles, skills and goal commitment (Bönte et al., 2015). In
organizational behavior, additional research is needed on the biological underpinnings of
human resource management and work design (Arvey et al., 2016) including GWAS and
fMRI studies.
CONCLUSION
Much progress has been made in research on the biological perspective over the past
years that has enriched our understanding of various organizational phenomena. Yet, many
gaps about the underpinnings linking biology to management remain. This review has
systematically provided a summary of what has been achieved in this area of research and has
offered a number of directions to take the field forward. We hope that this work may inspire
additional research in this area to further our understanding of management.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
29
REFERENCES
Agerstrom, J., & Rooth, D. O. 2011. The role of automatic obesity stereotypes in real hiring
discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4): 790-805.
Alrajih, S., & Ward, J. 2014. Increased facial width-to-height ratio and perceived dominance
in the faces of the uk's leading business leaders. British Journal of Psychology, 105(2):
153-161.
Arora, P., Haynie, J. M., & Laurence, G. A. 2013. Counterfactual thinking and entrepreneurial
self‐efficacy: The moderating role of self‐esteem and dispositional affect.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2): 359-385.
Arvey, R., Wang, N., Song, Z., & Li, W. 2014. The biology of leadership. In D. V. Day (Ed.),
The oxford handbook of leadership and organizations: Oxford University Press.
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. 1989. Job satisfaction:
Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2): 187-192.
Arvey, R. D., Li, W.-D., & Wang, N. 2016. Genetics and organizational behavior. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1): 167-190.
Arvey, R. D., McCall, B. P., Bouchard, T. J., Taubman, P., & Cavanaugh, M. A. 1994.
Genetic influences on job satisfaction and work values. Personality and Individual
Differences, 17(1): 21-33.
Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. 2006. The determinants of
leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. The Leadership Quarterly,
17(1): 1-20.
Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Krueger, R. F. 2007. Developmental and genetic
determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(3): 693-706.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
30
Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. 2005. An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-
norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.,
28: 403-450.
Avila, V. L. 1995. Biology: Investigating life on earth: Jones and Bartlett.
Baron, R. A., Markman, G. D., & Bollinger, M. 2006. Exporting social psychology: Effects of
attractiveness on perceptions of entrepreneurs, their ideas for new products, and their
financial success. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(2): 467-492.
Becker, W. J., Cropanzano, R., & Sanfey, A. G. 2011. Organizational neuroscience: Taking
organizational theory inside the neural black box. Journal of Management, 37(4): 933-961.
Becker, W. J., Volk, S., & Ward, M. K. 2015. Leveraging neuroscience for smarter
approaches to workplace intelligence. Human Resource Management Review, 25(1): 56-
67.
Belsky, D. W., Moffitt, T. E., Corcoran, D. L., Domingue, B., Harrington, H., Hogan, S.,
Houts, R., Ramrakha, S., Sugden, K., & Williams, B. S. 2016. The genetics of success:
How single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with educational attainment relate to
life-course development. Psychological Science, 27(7): 957-972.
Bendahan, S., Zehnder, C., Pralong, F. P., & Antonakis, J. 2015. Leader corruption depends
on power and testosterone. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2): 101-122.
Bergen, S. E., Gardner, C. O., & Kendler, K. S. 2007. Age-related changes in heritability of
behavioral phenotypes over adolescence and young adulthood: A meta-analysis. Twin Res
Hum Genet, 10(3): 423-433.
Betsworth, D. G., Bouchard, J. T. J., Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D., Hansen, J.-I. C., Scarr,
S., & Weinberg, R. A. 1994. Genetic and environmental influences on vocational interests
assessed using adoptive and biological families and twins reared apart and together.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(3): 263-278.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
31
Bönte, W., Procher, V. D., & Urbig, D. 2015. Biology and selection into entrepreneurship-the
relevance of prenatal testosterone exposure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(5):
1121-1148.
Boyatzis, R. E., Passarelli, A. M., Koenig, K., Lowe, M., Mathew, B., Stoller, J. K., &
Phillips, M. 2012. Examination of the neural substrates activated in memories of
experiences with resonant and dissonant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(2): 259-
272.
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. 2016. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower
funding success. Nature, 534(7609): 684-687.
Butler, M. J., & Senior, C. 2007. Toward an organizational cognitive neuroscience. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences, 1118: 1-17.
Butler, M. J. R., O'Broin, H. L. R., Lee, N., & Senior, C. 2016. How organizational cognitive
neuroscience can deepen understanding of managerial decision-making: A review of the
recent literature and future directions. International Journal of Management Reviews,
18(4): 542-559.
Byrne, Z. S., & Hochwarter, W. A. 2006. I get by with a little help from my friends: The
interaction of chronic pain and organizational support on performance. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3): 215-227.
Cacciotti, G., Hayton, J. C., Mitchell, J. R., & Giazitzoglu, A. 2016. A reconceptualization of
fear of failure in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(3): 302-325.
Carter, H. D. 1932. Twin similarities in occupational interests. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 23(9): 641-655.
Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. 2006. Gene–environment interactions in psychiatry: Joining forces
with neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(7): 583-590.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
32
Cawley, J. 2004. The impact of obesity on wages. The Journal of Human Resources, 39(2):
451-474.
Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. E., & Wallace, B. 2012. The behavioral
genetics of behavioral anomalies. Management Science, 58(1): 21-34.
Chaturvedi, S., Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., & Christoforou, P. T. 2011. Genetic underpinnings of
transformational leadership: The mediating role of dispositional hope. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4): 469-479.
Chaturvedi, S., Zyphur, M. J., Arvey, R. D., Avolio, B. J., & Larsson, G. 2012. The
heritability of emergent leadership: Age and gender as moderating factors. The Leadership
Quarterly, 23(2): 219-232.
Chi, W., Li, W. D., Wang, N., & Song, Z. 2016. Can genes play a role in explaining frequent
job changes? An examination of gene-environment interaction from human capital theory.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7): 1030-1044.
Christian, M. S., Eisenkraft, N., & Kapadia, C. 2014. Dynamic associations among somatic
complaints, human energy, and discretionary behaviors experiences with pain fluctuations
at work. Administrative Science Quarterly: 0001839214553655.
de Holan, P. M. 2013. It's all in your head: Why we need neuroentrepreneurship. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 23(1): 93-97.
Diebig, M., Bormann, K. C., & Rowold, J. 2016. A double-edged sword: Relationship
between full-range leadership behaviors and followers' hair cortisol level. The Leadership
Quarterly, 27(4): 684-696.
Doll, L. M., Hill, A. K., Rotella, M. A., Cardenas, R. A., Welling, L. L., Wheatley, J. R., &
Puts, D. A. 2014. How well do men's faces and voices index mate quality and dominance?
Human Nature, 25(2): 200-212.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
33
Dulebohn, J. H., Davison, R. B., Lee, S. A., Conlon, D. E., McNamara, G., & Sarinopoulos, I.
C. 2016. Gender differences in justice evaluations: Evidence from fmri. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101(2): 151.
Frank, M. J., Doll, B. B., Oas-Terpstra, J., & Moreno, F. 2009. Prefrontal and striatal
dopaminergic genes predict individual differences in exploration and exploitation. Nature
Neuroscience, 12(8): 1062-1068.
Ganster, D. C., Fox, M. L., & Dwyer, D. J. 2001. Explaining employees' health care costs: A
prospective examination of stressful job demands, personal control, and physiological
reactivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5): 954-964.
Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. 2013. Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 39(5): 1085-1122.
Gielen, A. C., Holmes, J., & Myers, C. 2016. Prenatal testosterone and the earnings of men
and women. Journal of Human Resources, 51(1): 30-61.
Greene, F. J., Han, L., Martin, S., Zhang, S., & Wittert, G. 2014. Testosterone is associated
with self-employment among australian men. Economics and Human Biology, 13: 76-84.
Hahn, E., Gottschling, J., König, C. J., & Spinath, F. M. 2016. The heritability of job
satisfaction reconsidered: Only unique environmental influences beyond personality.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(2): 217-231.
Hannah, S. T., Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Jennings, P. L., & Thatcher, R. W. 2013.
The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and effects on adaptive
decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3): 393-411.
Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. 2008. Positive social interactions and the human body at work:
Linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33(1): 137-162.
Ilies, R., Dimotakis, N., & De Pater, I. E. 2010. Psychological and physiological reactions to
high workloads: Implications for well-being. Personnel Psychology, 63(2): 407-436.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
34
Ilies, R., Dimotakis, N., & Watson, D. 2010. Mood, blood pressure, and heart rate at work: An
experience-sampling study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2): 120-130.
Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W., & Le, H. 2004. Individual differences in leadership emergence:
Integrating meta-analytic findings and behavioral genetics estimates. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 12(3): 207-219.
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. 2003. On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of
personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 750-759.
Jack, A. I., Boyatzis, R. E., Khawaja, M. S., Passarelli, A. M., & Leckie, R. L. 2013.
Visioning in the brain: An fmri study of inspirational coaching and mentoring. Social
Neuroscience, 8(4): 369-384.
Johnson, A. M., Vernon, P. A., McCarthy, J. M., Molson, M., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L.
1998. Nature vs nurture: Are leaders born or made? A behavior genetic investigation of
leadership style. Twin Research, 1(4): 216-223.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 80.
Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Zhang, Z. 2012. Genetic influences on core self-evaluations, job
satisfaction, and work stress: A behavioral genetics mediated model. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1): 208-220.
Karlson, B., Eek, F., Hansen, Å. M., Garde, A. H., & Ørbaek, P. 2011. Cortisol variability and
self-reports in the measurement of work-related stress. Stress and Health, 27(2): e11-e24.
Kawasaki, S., Nishimura, Y., Takizawa, R., Koike, S., Kinoshita, A., Satomura, Y.,
Sakakibara, E., Sakurada, H., Yamagishi, M., Nishimura, F., Yoshikawa, A., Inai, A.,
Nishioka, M., Eriguchi, Y., Kakiuchi, C., Araki, T., Kan, C., Umeda, M., Shimazu, A.,
Hashimoto, H., Kawakami, N., & Kasai, K. 2015. Using social epidemiology and

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
35
neuroscience to explore the relationship between job stress and frontotemporal cortex
activity among workers. Society for Neuroscience, 10(3): 230-242.
Klofstad, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Nowicki, S. 2015. Perceptions of competence, strength,
and age influence voters to select leaders with lower-pitched voices. PLoS One, 10(8):
e0133779.
Klofstad, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Peters, S. 2012. Sounds like a winner: Voice pitch
influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B, 279(1738): 2698-2704.
Klofstad, C. A., Nowicki, S., & Anderson, R. C. 2016. How voice pitch influences our choice
of leaders. American Scientist.
Koellinger, P. D., van der Loos, M. J. H. M., Groenen, P. J. F., Thurik, A. R., Rivadeneira, F.,
van Rooij, F. J. A., Uitterlinden, A. G., & Hofman, A. 2010. Genome-wide association
studies in economics and entrepreneurship research: Promises and limitations. Small
Business Economics, 35(1): 1-18.
Kong, D. T. 2014. An economic–genetic theory of corporate corruption across cultures: An
interactive effect of wealth and the 5httlpr-ss/sl frequency on corporate corruption
mediated by cultural endorsement of self-protective leadership. Personality and Individual
Differences, 63: 106-111.
Laureiro-Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., & Zollo, M. 2015. Understanding the
exploration-exploitation dilemma: An fmri study of attention control and decision-making
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3): 319-338.
Laureiro-Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., & Zollo, M. 2010. The neuroscientific foundations of the
exploration−exploitation dilemma. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics,
3(2): 95-115.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
36
Laureiro-Martinez, D., Canessa, N., Brusoni, S., Zollo, M., Hare, T., Alemanno, F., & Cappa,
S. F. 2014. Frontopolar cortex and decision-making efficiency: Comparing brain activity of
experts with different professional background during an exploration-exploitation task.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7: 927.
Lawler, E. E. 1974. The individualized organization: Problems and promise. California
Management Review, 17(2): 31-39.
Li, W.-D., Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., & Song, Z. 2012. Do leadership role occupancy and
transformational leadership share the same genetic and environmental influences? The
Leadership Quarterly, 23(2): 233-243.
Li, W.-D., Wang, N., Arvey, R. D., Soong, R., Saw, S. M., & Song, Z. 2015. A mixed
blessing? Dual mediating mechanisms in the relationship between dopamine transporter
gene dat1 and leadership role occupancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5): 671-686.
Li, W.-D., & Xie, J. L. 2013. Mixed blessing: Toward a dual pathway model of leadership
role occupancy and leaders' well-being. Academy of Management Proceedings: 12787:
Academy of Management.
Li, W.-D., Zhang, Z., Song, Z., & Arvey, R. D. 2016a. It is also in our nature: Genetic
influences on work characteristics and in explaining their relationships with well-being.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(6): 868-888.
Li, W. 2011. Proactive personality and work success: Disentangling genetic and
environmental influences. Annual Academy of Management Meeting. San Antonio, Texas.
Li, W. D., Stanek, K. C., Zhang, Z., Ones, D. S., & McGue, M. 2016b. Are genetic and
environmental influences on job satisfaction stable over time? A three-wave longitudinal
twin study. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Lindquist, M. J., Sol, J., & Van Praag, M. 2015. Why do entrepreneurial parents have
entrepreneurial children? Journal of Labor Economics, 33(2): 269-296.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
37
Little, A. C. 2014. Facial appearance and leader choice in different contexts: Evidence for task
contingent selection based on implicit and learned face-behaviour/face-ability associations.
The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5): 865-874.
Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, S. C. 2007. Facial appearance affects
voting decisions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(1): 18-27.
Logan, J. 2009. Dyslexic entrepreneurs: The incidence; their coping strategies and their
business skills. Dyslexia, 15(4): 328-346.
Lundberg, U., & Frankenhaeuser, M. 1999. Stress and workload of men and women in high-
ranking positions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(2): 142-151.
Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., McGue, M., & Tellegen, A. 1993. Heritability of interests:
A twin study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4): 649-661.
Manville, C., Akremi, A. E., Niezborala, M., & Mignonac, K. 2016. Injustice hurts, literally:
The role of sleep and emotional exhaustion in the relationship between organizational
justice and musculoskeletal disorders. Human Relations, 69(6): 1315-1339.
Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. 1979. Organizational stressors and heart disease: A
research model. Academy of Management Review, 4(3): 347-357.
McCall, B. P., Cavanaugh, M. A., Arvey, R. D., & Taubman, P. 1997. Genetic influences on
job and occupational switching. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(1): 60-77.
Mehta, P. H., & Josephs, R. A. 2010. Testosterone and cortisol jointly regulate dominance:
Evidence for a dual-hormone hypothesis. Hormone and Behavior, 58(5): 898-906.
Melin, B., Lundberg, U., Soderlund, J., & Granqvist, M. 1999. Psychological and
physiological stress reactions of male and female assembly workers: A comparison
between two different forms of work organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
20(1): 47-61.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
38
Molenberghs, P., Prochilo, G., Steffens, N. K., Zacher, H., & Haslam, S. A. 2015. The
neuroscience of inspirational leadership: The importance of collective-oriented language
and shared group membership. Journal of Management.
Munafò, M. R. 2006. Candidate gene studies in the 21st century: Meta-analysis, mediation,
moderation. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 5(S1): 3-8.
Narayanan, J., & Prasad, S. 2015. Neurobiological systems: Implications for organizational
behavior. In S. M. Colarelli and R. D. Arvey (Eds.), The biological foundations of
organizational behavior: University of Chicago Press.
Nicolaou, N., Patel, P. C., & Wolfe, M. T. in press. Testosterone and tendency to engage in
self-employment. Management Science.
Nicolaou, N., & Shane, S. 2009. Can genetic factors influence the likelihood of engaging in
entrepreneurial activity? Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1): 1-22.
Nicolaou, N., & Shane, S. 2013. Biology, neuroscience, and entrepreneurship. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 23(1): 98-100.
Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Adi, G., Mangino, M., & Harris, J. 2011. A polymorphism associated
with entrepreneurship: Evidence from dopamine receptor candidate genes. Small Business
Economics, 36(2): 151-155.
Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. D. 2008a. Is the tendency to
engage in entrepreneurship genetic? Management Science, 54(1): 167-179.
Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. D. 2008b. The influence of sensation
seeking in the heritability of entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1): 7-
21.
Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. D. 2009. Opportunity recognition and the
tendency to be an entrepreneur: A bivariate genetics perspective. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 110(2): 108-117.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
39
Olivola, C. Y., Eubanks, D. L., & Lovelace, J. B. 2014. The many (distinctive) faces of
leadership: Inferring leadership domain from facial appearance. The Leadership Quarterly,
25(5): 817-834.
Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. 1991. The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on
“environmental” measures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(03): 373-386.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. 2012. Behavioral genetics:
Worth Publishers.
Polderman, T. J. C., Benyamin, B., de Leeuw, C. A., Sullivan, P. F., van Bochoven, A.,
Visscher, P. M., & Posthuma, D. 2015. Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits
based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47(7): 702-709.
Poldrack, R. A. 2006. Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in
cognitive sciences, 10(2): 59-63.
Quaye, L., Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., & Harris, J. 2012a. A study of gene-environment
interactions in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 2(2).
Quaye, L., Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., & Mangino, M. 2012b. A discovery genome-wide
association study of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Developmental Science, 6:
127–135.
Raven, P., Johnson, G., Mason, K., Losos, J., & Singer, S. 2013. Biology (10 ed.): McGraw-
Hill Higher Education.
Re, D. E., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Perrett, D. I. 2013. Facial cues to perceived height
influence leadership choices in simulated war and peace contexts. Evolutionary
Psychology, 11(1).
Re, D. E., Dzhelyova, M., Holzleitner, I. J., Tigue, C. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Perrett, D. I.
2012. Apparent height and body mass index influence perceived leadership ability in three-
dimensional faces. Perception, 41(12): 1477-1485.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
40
Re, D. E., & Perrett, D. I. 2014. The effects of facial adiposity on attractiveness and perceived
leadership ability. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (Hove), 67(4): 676-686.
Ronay, R., & Carney, D. R. 2013. Testosterone's negative relationship with empathic
accuracy and perceived leadership ability. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
4(1): 92-99.
Rousseau, D. 2005. I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees negotiate for themselves. New
York, NY: ME Sharpe.
Rowe, D. C. 2003. Assessing genotype-environment interactions and correlations in the
postgenomic era. In R. Plomin, J. C. DeFries, I. W. Craig and P. McGuffin (Eds.),
Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era: 71–99. Washington: American Psychological
Association.
Saphire-Bernstein, S., Way, B. M., Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. 2011.
Oxytocin receptor gene (oxtr) is related to psychological resources. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 108(37): 15118-15122.
Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. 1994. Educational and occupational achievements of brothers
and sisters in adoptive and biologically related families. Behav Genet, 24(4): 301-325.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Kemmerer, B. E. 1994. Job complexity, “type a” behavior,
and cardiovascular disorder: A prospective study. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2):
426-439.
Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D. E. 1997. Divergent effects of job control on coping with work
stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 738-754.
Schermer, J. A., Johnson, A. M., Jang, K. L., & Vernon, P. A. 2015. Phenotypic, genetic, and
environmental relationships between self-reported talents and measured intelligence. Twin
Research and Human Genetics, 18(1): 36-42.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
41
Shane, S. 2009. Introduction to the focused issue on the biological basis of business.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2): 67-69.
Shane, S., & Nicolaou, N. 2015a. The biological basis of entrepreneurship. In S. M. Colarelli
and R. D. Arvey (Eds.), The biological foundations of organizational behavior: University
of Chicago Press.
Shane, S., & Nicolaou, N. 2015b. Creative personality, opportunity recognition and the
tendency to start businesses: A study of their genetic predispositions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 30(3): 407-419.
Shane, S., Nicolaou, N., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. D. 2010a. Do openness to experience and
recognizing opportunities have the same genetic source? Human Resource Management,
49(2): 291-303.
Shane, S., Nicolaou, N., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. D. 2010b. Genetics, the big five, and the
tendency to be self-employed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6): 1154-1162.
Sherman, G. D., Lee, J. J., Cuddy, A. J., Renshon, J., Oveis, C., Gross, J. J., & Lerner, J. S.
2012. Leadership is associated with lower levels of stress. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 109(44): 17903-17907.
Sherman, G. D., Lerner, J. S., Josephs, R. A., Renshon, J., & Gross, J. J. 2016. The interaction
of testosterone and cortisol is associated with attained status in male executives. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 110(6): 921-929.
Silverthorn, D. U. 2001. Human physiology: An integrated approach: Prentice Hall.
Song, Z., Li, W., & Arvey, R. D. 2011. Associations between dopamine and serotonin genes
and job satisfaction: Preliminary evidence from the add health study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(6): 1223-1233.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
42
Song, Z., Li, W., & Wang, N. 2015. Progress in molecular genetics and its potential
implications in organizational behavior research. In S. M. Colarelli and R. D. Arvey (Eds.),
The biological foundations of organizational behavior: University of Chicago Press.
Steffy, B. D., & Jones, J. W. 1988. Workplace stress and indicators of coronary-disease risk.
Academy of Management Journal, 31(3): 686-698.
Thurik, R., Khedhaouria, A., Torrès, O., & Verheul, I. 2016. Adhd symptoms and
entrepreneurial orientation of small firm owners. Applied Psychology, 65(3): 568-586.
Trahms, C. A., Coombs, J. E., & Barrick, M. 2010. Does biology matter? : How prenatal
testosterone, entrepreneur risk propensity, and entrepreneur risk perceptions influence
venture performance. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2010 : proceedings of the
thirtieth annual Entrepreneurship Research Conference: 217-229.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British
Journal of Management, 14(3): 207-222.
Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Narayanan, J., Weis, S., & Frese, M. 2009. Does prenatal
testosterone predict entrepreneurial success? Relationships of 2d: 4d and business success
(summary). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 29(5): 15.
Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Weis, S. E., & Frese, M. 2015. Biology (prenatal testosterone),
psychology (achievement need) and entrepreneurial impact. Journal of Business Venturing
Insights, 4: 1-5.
van der Loos, M. J. H. M., Koellinger, P. D., Groenen, P. J. F., & Thurik, A. R. 2010.
Genome-wide association studies and the genetics of entrepreneurship. European Journal
of Epidemiology, 25(1): 1-3.
van der Loos, M. J. H. M., Rietveld, C. A., Eklund, N., Koellinger, P. D., Rivadeneira, F.,
Abecasis, G. R., Ankra-Badu, G. A., Baumeister, S. E., Benjamin, D. J., Biffar, R.,

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
43
Blankenberg, S., Boomsma, D. I., Cesarini, D., Cucca, F., de Geus, E. J. C., Dedoussis, G.,
Deloukas, P., Dimitriou, M., Eiriksdottir, G., Eriksson, J., Gieger, C., Gudnason, V.,
Hohne, B., Holle, R., Hottenga, J.-J., Isaacs, A., Jarvelin, M.-R., Johannesson, M.,
Kaakinen, M., Kahonen, M., Kanoni, S., Laaksonen, M. A., Lahti, J., Launer, L. J.,
Lehtimaki, T., Loitfelder, M., Magnusson, P. K. E., Naitza, S., Oostra, B. A., Perola, M.,
Petrovic, K., Quaye, L., Raitakari, O., Ripatti, S., Scheet, P., Schlessinger, D., Schmidt, C.
O., Schmidt, H., Schmidt, R., Senft, A., Smith, A. V., Spector, T. D., Surakka, I., Svento,
R., Terracciano, A., Tikkanen, E., van Duijn, C. M., Viikari, J., Volzke, H., Wichmann, H.-
E., Wild, P. S., Willems, S. M., Willemsen, G., van Rooij, F. J. A., Groenen, P. J. F.,
Uitterlinden, A. G., Hofman, A., & Thurik, A. R. 2013. The molecular genetic architecture
of self-employment. PLoS One, 8(4): e60542.
Verheul, I., Block, J., Burmeister-Lamp, K., Thurik, R., Tiemeier, H., & Turturea, R. 2015.
Adhd-like behavior and entrepreneurial intentions. Small Business Economics, 45(1): 85-
101.
Verheul, I., Rietdijk, W., Block, J., Franken, I., Larsson, H., & Thurik, R. 2016. The
association between attention-deficit/hyperactivity (adhd) symptoms and self-employment.
European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(8): 793-801.
Waldman, D., Wang, D., Hannah, S., & Balthazard, P. in press. A neurological and
ideological perspective of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal.
Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P. A., & Peterson, S. J. 2011. Leadership and neuroscience: Can
we revolutionize the way that inspirational leaders are identified and developed? The
Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1): 60-74.
Waldman, D. A., Wang, D., & Fenters, V. 2016a. The added value of neuroscience methods
in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods: 1094428116642013.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
44
Waldman, D. A., Ward, M., & Becker, W. J. 2016b. Neuroscience in organizational behavior.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior(0).
Ward, M., Volk, S., & Becker, W. J. 2015. An overview of organizational neuroscience.
Organizational neuroscience: 17-50.
Wernerfelt, N., Rand, D. G., Dreber, A., Montgomery, C., & Malhotra, D. K. 2012. Arginine
vasopressin 1a receptor (avpr1a) rs3 repeat polymorphism associated with
entrepreneurship. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2141598.
White, R. E., Thornhill, S., & Hampson, E. 2006. Entrepreneurs and evolutionary biology:
The relationship between testosterone and new venture creation. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 100(1): 21-34.
Wiklund, J., Patzelt, H., & Dimov, D. 2016. Entrepreneurship and psychological disorders:
How adhd can be productively harnessed. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 6: 14-20.
Yeo, G. S. 2011. Where next for gwas? Brief Funct Genomics, 10(2): 51.
Zanko, M., & Dawson, P. 2012. Occupational health and safety management in organizations:
A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(3): 328-344.
Zhang, S. X., & Cueto, J. 2017. The study of bias in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 41(3): 419-454.
Zhang, T.-Y., & Meaney, M. J. 2010. Epigenetics and the environmental regulation of the
genome and its function. Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 439-466.
Zhang, Z., & Ilies, R. 2010. Moderating effects of earlier family environment on genetic
influences on entrepreneurship. Symposium Presentation at the Annual Conference of the
Academy of Management. Montréal, Canada.
Zhang, Z., Ilies, R., & Arvey, R. D. 2009a. Beyond genetic explanations for leadership: The
moderating role of the social environment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 110(2): 118-128.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
45
Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. 2015. Physiological functioning and employee health in
organizations. In S. M. Colarelli and R. D. Arvey (Eds.), The biological foundations of
organizational behavior: University of Chicago Press.
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., Narayanan, J., Arvey, R. D., Chaturvedi, S., Avolio, B. J.,
Lichtenstein, P., & Larsson, G. 2009b. The genetic basis of entrepreneurship: Effects of
gender and personality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2):
93-107.
Zyphur, M. J., Li, W.-D., Zhang, Z., Arvey, R. D., & Barsky, A. P. 2015. Income, personality,
and subjective financial well-being: The role of gender in their genetic and environmental
relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.
Zyphur, M. J., Zhang, Z., Barsky, A. P., & Li, W.-D. 2013. An ace in the hole: Twin family
models for applied behavioral genetics research. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4): 572-
594.
FOOTNOTES
1
The Association of Business School’s Academic Journal Guide (ABS, 2015) provides a list
of 1401 journals in different business areas.
2
Although ‘biology’ and ‘physiology’ are sometimes used interchangeably, biology is the
study of living organisms, divided into various sub-disciplines, such as anatomy,
immunology, microbiology, physiology and neurology (Avila, 1995; Raven, Johnson, Mason,
Losos & Singer, 2013).
3
Sherman et al (2016) examined the association of both testosterone and cortisol with
attained status in male executives.
4
ADHD is a “neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by attention-deficit and
hyperactivity” (Verheul., 2016: 793).

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
46
Table 1
Articles included in the Systematic Review (sorted by year) *
Genetics
Physiology
Neuroscience
(Carter, 1932)
(Vandenberg & Kelly,
1964)
(Vandenberg &
Stafford, 1967)
(Novit, 1981)
(Kefalas & Suojanen,
1974)
(Arvey et al., 1989)
(Tambs, Sundet,
Magnus & Berg, 1989)
(Cropanzano & James,
1990)
(Moloney, Bouchard &
Segal, 1991)
(Lykken, McGue,
Tellegen & Bouchard,
1992)
(Bouchard, Arvey,
Keller & Segal, 1992)
(Keller, Bouchard,
Arvey, Segal & Dawis,
1992)
(Lichtenstein, Pedersen
& McClearn, 1992)
(Kupfer, 1993)
(Lykken et al., 1993)
(Arvey & Bouchard,
1994)
(Chase, 1967)
(Ramey, 1973)
(Matteson & Ivancevich, 1979)
(Purifoy & Koopmans, 1979)
(Cann, Siegfried & Pearce,
1981)
(Ivancevich, Matteson &
Preston, 1982)
(Rose, Jenkins, Hurst, Herd &
Hall, 1982)
(Balick & Herd, 1987)
(Chung & Leung, 1988)
(Steffy & Jones, 1988)
(Dabbs, de La Rue & Williams,
1990)
(Dabbs, 1992)
(Fox, Dwyer & Ganster, 1993)
(Schaubroeck et al., 1994)
(Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997)
(Dabbs, Alford & Fielden,
1998)
(Lundberg & Frankenhaeuser,
1999)
(Melin et al., 1999)
(Evans & Steptoe, 2001)
(Ganster et al., 2001)
(Rau, Georgiades, Fredrikson,
Lemne & de Faire, 2001)
(Chiu & Babcock, 2002)
(Hines, 1987)
(Mannuzza, Klein, Bessler,
Malloy & LaPadula, 1993)
(Carroll & Ponterotto, 1998)
(Cooper, 2000)
(Kussrow, 2001)
(Taylor & Walter, 2003)
(Reynolds, 2006)
(Rock & Schwartz, 2006)
(Bailey, 2007)
(Butler & Senior, 2007a)
(Butler & Senior, 2007b)
(Dvorak & Badal, 2007)
(Klein & D'Esposito, 2007)
(Lee & Chamberlain, 2007)
(Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008)
(Gordon, 2008)
(Lee, Butler & Senior, 2008)
(Painter, Prevatt & Welles,
2008)
(Peterson, Balthazard,
Waldman & Thatcher, 2008)
(Ringleb & Rock, 2008)
(Senior, Lee & Butler, 2008a)
(Senior, Lee & Butler, 2008b)
(Beugré, 2009)
(Halmøy, Fasmer, Gillberg &
Haavik, 2009)
(Kleinman, Durkin, Melkonian

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
47
(Arvey et al., 1994)
(Betsworth et al., 1994)
(Hershberger,
Lichtenstein & Knox,
1994)
(Scarr & Weinberg,
1994)
(Strudler, 1994)
(McCall et al., 1997)
(Johnson et al., 1998)
(Murry, Wimbush &
Dalton, 2001)
(Ilies & Judge, 2003)
(Roberts, 2003)
(Ilies et al., 2004)
(Johnson, Vernon,
Harris & Jang, 2004)
(Arvey et al., 2006)
(Ilies, Arvey &
Bouchard, 2006)
(Arvey et al., 2007)
(Barclay & Markel,
2007)
(Nicolaou et al., 2008a)
(Nicolaou et al., 2008b)
(Salter, 2008)
(Frank et al., 2009)
(Johnson, 2009)
(Nicolaou & Shane,
2009)
(Nicolaou et al., 2009)
(Zhang et al., 2009a)
(Zhang et al., 2009b)
(Lundberg & Hellström, 2002)
(Roehling, 2002)
(Barling, Kelloway & Iverson,
2003)
(Fannin & Dabbs, 2003)
(Hosoda, Stone-Romero &
Coats, 2003)
(Cawley, 2004)
(Judge & Cable, 2004)
(Kunz-Ebrecht, Kirschbaum,
Marmot & Steptoe, 2004)
(Schlotz, Hellhammer, Schulz
& Stone, 2004)
(Ferris, Sinclair & Kline, 2005)
(Tunceli, Bradley, Nerenz,
Williams, Pladevall & Elston
Lafata, 2005)
(Baron et al., 2006)
(Byrne & Hochwarter, 2006)
(White et al., 2006)
(Little et al., 2007)
(Lovelace, Manz & Alves,
2007)
(Tomasino, 2007)
(White, Thornhill & Hampson,
2007)
(Heaphy & Dutton, 2008)
(Rystedt, Cropley, Devereux &
Michalianou, 2008)
(Wirtz, Siegrist, Rimmele &
Ehlert, 2008)
(Bass & Bass, 2009)
(Han, Norton & Stearns, 2009)
& Markosyan, 2009)
(Logan, 2009)
(Salvador & Folger, 2009)
(Becker & Cropanzano, 2010)
(Lafferty & Alford, 2010)
(Laureiro-Martínez et al., 2010)
(Lee, Butler & Senior, 2010)
(Rock, 2010)
(Senior, 2010)
(Becker et al., 2011)
(Boyatzis, 2011)
(Powell, 2011)
(Senior, Lee & Butler, 2011)
(Waldman, Balthazard &
Peterson, 2011b)
(Waldman et al., 2011a)
(Balthazard, Waldman,
Thatcher & Hannah, 2012)
(Boyatzis et al., 2012)
(Hills, 2012)
(Lee, Senior & Butler, 2012a)
(Lee, Senior & Butler, 2012b)
(Lindebaum, 2012)
(Powell & Puccinelli, 2012)
(Seni, 2012)
(Volk & Kohler, 2012)
(Ashkanasy, 2013)
(Becker & Menges, 2013)
(Bozionelos & Bozionelos,
2013)
(Butler, 2013)
(Cropanzano & Becker, 2013)
(de Holan, 2013)

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
48
(Koellinger et al., 2010)
(Nicolaou & Shane,
2010)
(Shane, 2010)
(Shane et al., 2010b)
(Shane et al., 2010a)
(van der Loos et al.,
2010)
(Zhang & Ilies, 2010)
(Chaturvedi et al., 2011)
(Li, 2011)
(Nicolaou et al., 2011)
(Song et al., 2011)
(van der Loos et al.,
2011)
(Cesarini et al., 2012)
(Chaturvedi et al., 2012)
(Judge et al., 2012)
(Li et al., 2012)
(Quaye et al., 2012a)
(Quaye et al., 2012b)
(Wernerfelt et al., 2012)
(De Neve, Mikhaylov,
Dawes, Christakis &
Fowler, 2013; Meyers,
van Woerkom & Dries,
2013)
(Shane & Nicolaou,
2013)
(van der Loos et al.,
2013b)
(Zyphur et al., 2013)
(Kong, 2014)
(Hansen, Larsen, Rugulies,
Garde & Knudsen, 2009)
(Heraclides, Chandola, Witte &
Brunner, 2009)
(Judge, Hurst & Simon, 2009)
(Shane, 2009)
(Sapienza, Zingales &
Maestripieri, 2009)
(Unger et al., 2009)
(Wright, Cropanzano, Bonett &
Diamond, 2009)
(Zyphur, Narayanan, Koh &
Koh, 2009)
(Akinola, 2010)
(Ilies et al., 2010b)
(Ilies et al., 2010a)
(Mehta & Josephs, 2010)
(Sundararajan, 2010)
(Trahms et al., 2010)
(Voracek & Schicker, 2010)
(Agerstrom & Rooth, 2011)
(Guiso & Rustichini, 2011b)
(Guiso & Rustichini, 2011a)
(Jackson, Madewell &
Kennison, 2011)
(Karlson et al., 2011)
(Saphire-Bernstein et al., 2011)
(Arvey & Zhen, 2012)
(Klofstad et al., 2012)
(Little & Roberts, 2012)
(Livingston, Rosette &
Washington, 2012)
(Re et al., 2012)
(Halbesleben, Wheeler &
Shanine, 2013)
(Hannah et al., 2013)
(Jack et al., 2013)
(Laureiro-Martinez et al., 2014)
(Lindebaum, 2013a)
(Lindebaum, 2013b)
(Lindebaum & Zundel, 2013;
Scherbaum & Meade, 2013)
(Nicolaou & Shane, 2013)
(Senior & Lee, 2013)
(Tracey & Schluppeck, 2013)
(Waldman, 2013)
(Waldman et al., 2013)
(Waytz & Mason, 2013)
(Ashkanasy, Becker &
Waldman, 2014)
(Boyatzis, 2014)
(Boyatzis, Rochford & Jack,
2014)
(Cikara & Van Bavel, 2014)
(Foxall, 2014)
(Healey & Hodgkinson, 2014)
(Krueger & Welpe, 2014)
(Lindebaum & Jordan, 2014)
(Lindebaum & Raftopoulou,
2014)
(McDermott & Hatemi, 2014)
(McDonald & Tang, 2014)
(Spector, 2014)
(Volk & Becker, 2014)
(Volk, Köhler & Pudelko,
2014)

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
49
(Spain & Harms, 2014)
(Colarelli & Arvey,
2015)
(Dimotakis & Schatten,
2015)
(Li et al., 2015)
(Lindquist et al., 2015)
(Schermer et al., 2015)
(Shane & Nicolaou,
2015b)
(Zyphur et al., 2015)
(Arvey et al., 2016)
(Belsky et al., 2016)
(Chi et al., 2016)
(Clark, Barney &
Reddington, 2015)
(Hahn et al., 2016)
(Li et al., 2016b)
(Li et al., 2016a)
(Sherman et al., 2012)
(Spisak, Homan, Grabo & Van
Vugt, 2012)
(Spisak, Dekker, Kruger & van
Vugt, 2012)
(Spisak, 2012)
(Ganster & Rosen, 2013)
(Li & Xie, 2013)
(Re et al., 2013)
(Ronay & Carney, 2013)
(Scherbaum & Meade, 2013)
(van der Loos et al., 2013a)
(White, Kenrick & Neuberg,
2013)
(Alrajih & Ward, 2014)
(Arvey et al., 2014)
(Christian et al., 2014)
(Doll et al., 2014)
(Greene et al., 2014)
(Gundemir, Homan, de Dreu &
van Vugt, 2014)
(Little, 2014)
(Olivola et al., 2014)
(Re & Perrett, 2014)
(Arvey & Zhang, 2015)
(Bendahan et al., 2015)
(Vongas & Al Hajj, 2015)
(Schipper, 2015)
(Unger et al., 2015)
(Klofstad et al., 2015)
(Bönte et al., 2015)
(Diebig et al., 2016)
(Gielen et al., 2016)
(Balthazard & Thatcher, 2015)
(Basnakova, van Berkum,
Weber & Hagoort, 2015)
(Becker et al., 2015)
(Boyatzis, Rochford & Taylor,
2015)
(Case & Oetama-Paul, 2015)
(Coetzer, 2015)
(Friedman, Jack, Rochford &
Boyatzis, 2015)
(Jackie, 2015)
(Jiang et al., 2015)
(Kawasaki et al., 2015)
(Laureiro-Martínez et al.,
2015a)
(Laureiro-Martínez,
Venkatraman, Cappa, Zollo &
Brusoni, 2015b)
(Massaro, 2015)
(Molenberghs et al., 2015)
(Senior, Lee & Braeutigam,
2015)
(Verheul et al., 2015)
(Waldman & Balthazard,
2015b)
(Waldman & Balthazard,
2015a)
(Butler et al., 2016)
(Cropanzano, Massaro &
Becker, 2016)
(Dulebohn et al., 2016)
(Healey, Hodgkinson &
Massaro, 2016)

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
50
(Klofstad et al., 2016)
(Manville et al., 2016)
(Nickson, Timming, Re &
Perrett, 2016)
(Overskeid, 2016)
(Re & Rule, 2016a)
(Re & Rule, 2016b)
(Re & Rule, 2016c)
(Sherman et al., 2016)
(van der Meij, Schaveling &
van Vugt, 2016)
(Zak & Winn, 2016)
(Nicolaou et al., in press)
(Silberzahn & Menges, in press)
(Hoffman, 2016)
(Lindebaum, 2016)
(Niven & Boorman, 2016)
(Robertson, Voegtlin & Maak,
2016)
(Rochford, Jack, Boyatzis &
French, 2016)
(Thurik et al., 2016)
(Verheul et al., 2016)
(Waldman et al., 2016a)
(Wiklund et al., 2016)
(Waldman et al., 2016b)
(Butler, Lee & Senior, In press)
(Braeutigam, Lee & Senior, In
press)
(Waldman et al., in press)
*Complete references for the papers listed in Table 1 appear in the online appendix.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
51
Figure 1
Organizing Framework*
* Some studies are included in more than one category. For example, the paper by Mehta and Josephs (2010) Is included in both the testosterone
and cortisol sections as it examines both.

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
52
Figure 2
Theoretical Framework*
* The figure draws from Arvey and Bouchard (1994) and Arvey et al. (2014) and focuses only on biological influences on management. There
are also interactions between biological factors such as gene X gene interactions and hormone X hormone interactions that are not described in
the diagram