Search results

Recent years have seen an explosion in research by scholars from the social sciences and humanities who apply neuroscience to research in their home disciplines. One way these ‘neuroscholars’ have engaged in conversations with neuroscience is by incorporating books of popular neuroscience into their work. This chapter explores some of the textual changes that result from the translation of neuroscience to popular neuroscience, and through rhetorical analysis, examines how popular neuroscience is used to support claims in emerging disciplines like neuroeconomics, neuroliterary criticism, neurolaw, and neuroeducation. An examination of scholarship from several disciplines – including sociology – reveals that popular neuroscience is often marshaled not as a translation or accommodation of science, but as science itself via two primary rhetorical strategies we have termed ‘fact finding’ and ‘theory building.’

For organizational neuroscience to progress, it requires an overarching theoretical framework that locates neural processes appropriately within the wider context of organizational cognitive activities. In this chapter, we argue the case for building such a framework on two foundations: (1) critical realism, and (2) socially situated cognition. Critical realism holds to the importance of identifying biophysical roots for organizational activity (including neurophysiological processes) while acknowledging the top-down influence of higher-level, emergent organizational phenomena such as routines and structures, thereby avoiding the trap of reductionism. Socially situated cognition connects the brain, body, and mind to social, cultural, and environmental forces, as significant components of complex organizational systems. By focusing on adaptive action as the primary explanandum, socially situated cognition posits that, although the brain plays a driving role in adaptive organizational activity, this activity also relies on the body, situational context, and cognitive processes that are distributed across organizational agents and artifacts. The value of the framework that we sketch out is twofold. First, it promises to help organizational neuroscience become more than an arena for validating basic neuroscience concepts, enabling organizational researchers to backfill into social neuroscience, by identifying unique relations between the brain and social organization. Second, it promises to build deeper connections between neuroscience and mainstream theories of organizational behavior, by advancing models of managerial and organizational cognition that are biologically informed and socially situated.

The chapter examines to what extent research from social cognitive neuroscience can inform ethical leadership. We evaluate the contribution of brain research to the understanding of ethical leaders as moral persons as well the understanding of their role as moral managers. The areas of social cognitive neuroscience that mirror these two aspects of ethical leadership comprise research relating to understanding oneself, understanding others, and the relationship between the self and others. Within these, we deem it relevant for ethical leadership to incorporate research findings about self-reflection, self-regulation, theory of mind, empathy, trust, and fairness. The chapter highlights social cognitive neuroscience research in these areas and discusses its actual and potential contributions to ethical leadership. The chapter thereby engages also with the broader discussion on the neuroscience of leadership. We suggest new avenues for future research in the field of leadership ethics and responsibility.

This chapter advocates the use of neuroscience theoretical insights and methodological tools to advance existing organizational justice theory, research, and practice. To illustrate the value of neuroscience, two general topics are reviewed. In regard to individual justice, neuroscience makes it clear that organizational justice theory and research needs to integrate both emotion and cognition. Neuroscience also suggests promising avenues for practical individual justice interventions. For other-focused justice, neuroscience clarifies how empathy provides a mechanism for deontic justice while again highlighting the need to consider both emotion and cognition. Neuroscience research into group characterizations also suggests promising explanations for deontic justice failures. We also show how other-focused justice interventions are possible, but more complex, than for self-focused justice. We conclude that interdisciplinary research has great potential to advance both organizational justice and neuroscience research.

In light of the growing interest in neuroscience within the managerial and organizational cognition (MOC) scholarly domain at large, this chapter advances current knowledge on core neuroscience methods. It does so by building on the theoretical analysis put forward by Healey and Hodgkinson (2014, 2015), and by offering a thorough – yet accessible – methodological framework for a better understanding of key cognitive and social neuroscience methods. Classifying neuroscience methods based on their degree of resolution, functionality, and anatomical focus, the chapter outlines their features, practicalities, advantages and disadvantages. Specifically, it focuses on functional magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography, heart rate variability, and skin conductance response. Equipped with knowledge of these methods, researchers will be able to further their understanding of the potential synergies between management and neuroscience, to better appreciate and evaluate the value of neuroscience methods, and to look at new ways to frame old and new research questions in MOC. The chapter also builds bridges between researchers and practitioners by rebalancing the hype and hopes surrounding the use of neuroscience in management theory and practice.

A neuroscientific turn has been diagnosed in several disciplines, but sociology has not yet undertaken this turn. While other social science disciplines are engaging in a lively discussion with the ‘new brain sciences’ and have established extensive collaboration, exchange between neuroscience and sociology is almost absent. Besides a general scepticism towards “reductionist” explanations, this is largely due to sociology focusing on its traditional role as observer and critic of current developments in science. In this chapter, I argue that this ‘sociology of neuroscience’ approach should be complemented by an increased attention to actual neuroscientific findings with respect to key theoretical concepts in sociology and social theory more generally. I discuss how contemporary neuroscience research can assist in sharpening and empirically refining our understanding of a number of micro-sociological concepts that often elude investigation with more traditional social science methods. I highlight the possible benefits and pitfalls of such endeavours by discussing the ‘neurosociology’ paradigm and sketch alternative ways of mutual engagement with the new brain sciences.

Neuroscience, with its promise to peer into the brain and explain the sources of human behavior and human consciousness, has captured the scientific, clinical, and public imaginations. Among those in the thrall of neuroscience are a group of ethicists who are carving out a new subspecialty within the field of bioethics: neuroethics. Neuroethics has taken as its task the policing of neuroscience. By virtue of its very existence, neuroethics presents a threat to its parent field bioethics. In its struggle to maintain authority as the guardian of neuroscience, neuroethics must respond to criticisms from bioethicists who see no need for the subspecialty. We describe the social history of neuroethics and use that history to consider several issues of concern to social scientists, including the social contexts that generate ethical questions and shape the way those questions are framed and answered; strategies used by neuroethicists to secure a place in an occupational structure that includes life scientists and other ethics experts; and the impact of the field of neuroethics on both the work of neuroscience and public perceptions of the value and danger of the science of the brain.

This chapter overviews organizational neuroscience (ON), covering the past, present, and future of this growing field of inquiry. First, we define ON and clarify the boundaries of the field. Second, we describe the evolution of ON by starting with early papers that tended to discuss the potential of ON to benefit both research and practice. Throughout its development, debates have abounded about the value of ON. Such debates are often related to challenges in collecting, integrating, interpreting, and using information from the brain-level of analysis. It is time for the field to move beyond these debates to focus on applying neuroscience to further theory development and reveal more comprehensive answers to research questions of importance to both academics and practitioners. Third, we propose and describe future research directions for ON. The research directions that we propose are merely a sample of the many paths along which ON inquiry can move forward. Fourth, we outline potential practical implications of ON, including: training and development, job design, high-performance assessment, motivating communications, and conflict prevention. Finally, we draw conclusions about ON as it stands today, address challenges in developing ON, and point out opportunities. We conclude with takeaways and highlight the importance of ON for both academics and practitioners.

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.

Although the field of neuroscience has evolved dramatically, little research has attempted to conceptualize the impact of neuroscience on the field of human resource development (HRD). The purpose of this study is an integrative review of the influential relationship between neuroscience and workplace learning including applicable implications for HRD research and practice.

By reviewing 93 studies on neuroscience and brain-based learning published between 1995 and 2017, the authors synthesized their findings.

This study discusses the basic concepts of neuroscience such as the structure and functions of the brain, neuroscientific findings about memory and cognition, the effect of neural transmitters on memory and cognition and the neuroscience of learning. This study also illustrates brain-based learning styles affecting learning and describes various neuroscientific learning principles and models that can be applied to practical planning and the delivery of workplace learning and HRD activities.

This study concludes with brain-based learning principles called neuroscientism compared with traditional learning theories. It also includes several brain-based learning cases from workplace settings and implications for future research and further HRD practices.