Search results

Neuroscience research on human motivation in the workplace is still in its infancy. There is a large industrial and organizational (IO) psychology literature containing numerous theories of motivation, relating to prosocial and productive, and, less so, “darker” antisocial and counter-productive, behaviors. However, the development of a viable over-arching theoretical framework has proved elusive. In this chapter, we argue that basic neuropsychological systems related to approach, avoidance, and their conflict, may provide such a framework, one which we discuss in terms of the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) of personality. We argue that workplace behaviors may be understood by reference to the motivational types that are formed from the combination of basic approach, avoidance, and conflict-related personalities. We offer suggestions for future research to explore workplace behaviors in terms of the wider literature on the neuroscience of motivation.

Any career is marked by luck, both good and bad, as well as by hard work interspersed by times of uncertainty, fits and starts, and learning from one's mistakes and successes. But beyond these outcomes and actions, I owe an enormous debt to people who have shaped me and made life the challenging and rewarding journey it is. My family of origin and extended family were incredibly supportive in personal and functional ways. So many mentors and teachers influenced what I know and who I am. Many students, colleagues, secretaries, computer and library staff, and group chairs and deans provided the help, inspiration, and friendship guiding my career behind the scenes. My wife, son, and daughter sustained me through times of tears and joy, as did my community of faith. All these relationships were foundational to any contributions I may have made to attitudes, social action, and theory of mind; methodology, statistics, and philosophical foundations of research; sales force, organization, and health behaviors; emotions, ethics, and moral behavior; and marketing and managerial practice. For me, my career contributions are secondary to the relationships within which I was fortunate to engage.

In this introductory chapter, we make the case for the need for a book that explores this nascent field that we label as organizational neuroscience. In so doing, we put the field in an historical context and overview some recent reviews and thought pieces that have touched upon various topics in this emerging discipline. Key arguments for our case include the fact that research methods and paradigms in the organizational sciences could benefit from a consideration of neuroscience issues, and technology has advanced to the point where an infusion of neuroscience methods into organizational research is now highly feasible. In addition, practitioners and practice-oriented media are ready for new approaches and techniques that could utilize neuroscience-based knowledge. Indeed, “C-suite” executives have been willing subjects in many of the studies described in this book and have shown a genuine interest in applying brain-based theories to their own success and to the success of the organizations that they lead. As such, a goal of this book is to begin to connect such emerging knowledge with practice in areas like organizational, employee, and leader development. At the same time, all of the chapters go to great lengths to not get ahead of ourselves in terms of ideas for practice that are not firmly grounded in research. We further place the area of organizational neuroscience in the greater context of related fields, including neuroeconomics and neuromarketing, and we stress the interdisciplinary nature of all of these emerging disciplines. Finally, we overview the remaining chapters and describe how we delineate two parts of the book based on general issues and topical applications, respectively.

This study examines the effects of narcissism and bonus-based incentive plans on managerial decision-making performance. Using an experiment, the authors first examine decision choices under two levels of an incentive threshold (high and low). Narcissism is measured using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI). Typically, the NPI is used as a single monolithic construct in analyses; however, in this study, the authors subdivide it in two ways to gain more nuanced information about its impact on decision making. First, the authors split the NPI into three levels – high, medium, and low (Hascalovitz & Obhi, 2015), and then decompose it into its adaptive and maladaptive components (Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, 2011) to examine how these subdivisions affect performance. Results show that the different levels of incentive thresholds affect performance among narcissistic individuals. Results indicate that individuals higher in narcissism and higher in levels of adaptive and maladaptive narcissism outperform their low-trait counterparts in a lower-threshold environment, but not in a high threshold environment.

The idea that a significant portion of what consumers do, feel, and think is driven by automatic (or “implicit”) cognitive processes has sparked a wave of interest in the development of assessment tools that (attempt to) capture cognitive processes under automaticity conditions (also known as “implicit measures”). However, as more and more implicit measures are developed, it is becoming increasingly difficult for consumer scientists and marketing professionals to select the most appropriate tool for a specific research question. We therefore present a systematic overview of the criteria that can be used to evaluate and compare different implicit measures, including their structural characteristics, the extent to which (and the way in which) they qualify as “implicit,” as well as more practical considerations such as ease of implementation and the user experience of the respondents. As an example, we apply these criteria to four implicit measures that are (or have the potential to become) popular in marketing research (i.e., the implicit association test, the evaluative priming task, the affect misattribution procedure, and the propositional evaluation paradigm).

Achievement goal theory traces people's behaviors, thoughts, and emotions in achievement situations to the broad goals they pursue in that activity, whether in education, sports, work, or other achievement domains (Dweck, 1986; Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Nicholls, 1984). Two goals have featured prominently: mastery goals (also sometimes called learning goals) and performance goals (also called ego goals or ability validation goals). Both goals concern the pursuit of competence and the assessment of one's own skill level, yet they do so in distinct ways. People pursuing a mastery goal strive to develop their skill or expertise, while those pursuing a performance goal instead strive to demonstrate and validate their existing skill, typically by outperforming peers. As such, those pursuing mastery goals typically use self-referential standards to define success versus failure, while those pursuing performance goals instead use normative standards to define success versus failure.

Cognitive evaluation theory (CET; Deci, 1975), SDT's first mini-theory, was built from research on the dynamic interplay between external events (e.g., rewards, choice) and people's task interest or enjoyment – that is, intrinsic motivation (IM). At the time, this research was quite controversial, as operant theory (Skinner, 1971) had dominated the psychological landscape. The central assumption of operant theory was that reinforcement contingencies in the environment control behavior, which precluded the existence of inherently satisfying activities performed for non-separable outcomes. During this time, Deci proposed that people – by nature – possess intrinsic motivation (IM), which can manifest as engagement in curiosity-based behaviors, discovery of new perspectives, and seeking out optimal challenges (see also Harlow, 1953; White, 1959). IM thus represents a manifestation of the organismic growth tendency and is readily observed in infants' and toddlers' exploratory behavior and play. Operationally, an intrinsically motivated activity is performed for its own sake – that is, the behavior is experienced as inherently satisfying. From an attributional perspective (deCharms, 1968), such behaviors have an internal perceived locus of causality, as people perceive their behavior as emanating from their sense of self, rather than from experiences of control or coercion.