Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience Research Articles

Effectivity of Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience on Managerial Decision-Making: A Review of Recent Literature and Future Directions

Effectivity of Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience on Managerial Decision-Making: A Review of Recent Literature and Future Directions

Organizational cognitive neuroscience: A step ahead in understanding counterproductive workplace behavior

<p>This paper discusses the dawn of cognitive neuroscience in management and organizational research. The study does that in two tiers: first, it reviews the interdisciplinary field of organizational cognitive neuroscience and second, it analyzes the role organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN) could play in reducing counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWB). Theoretically the literature has established the benefits of a neuro-scientific approach towards understanding various organizational behaviors but no research has been done on using organizational neuroscience techniques to study counterproductive work behaviors. This paper however has taken the first step towards this research avenue. The study will shed light on this interdisciplinary field of organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN) and the benefits that organizations can reap from it with respect to understanding employee behavior. A research agenda for future studies is provided to scholars who are interested in advancing the investigation of cognition in counterproductive work behaviors, also by using neuroscience techniques. The study concludes by providing evidences drawn from the literature in favor of adopting an OCN approach in organizations.<strong><em></em></strong></p>

Neuroleadership: Themes and limitations of an emerging interdisciplinary field.

The relationship between brain and behaviour has perplexed philosophers and scientists since the time of the ancient Greeks. Recent technological advances have allowed neuroscience to flourish, alongside growing romanticism that reductionist studies will allow us to understand complex interpersonal behaviours. Organizational cognitive neuroscience and neuroleadership are newly established interdisciplinary fields that use neuroscientific techniques to answer questions about behaviours within organizations. Neuroleadership aims to discover screening tools for good leaders, to improve leadership skills, and to identify unconscious factors affecting behaviour in hopes of improving management and leadership practices. Although proponents of neuroleadership are optimistic, if we know anything about the functions of the human brain and our interpersonal behaviours, it is that they are exquisitely complex and context dependant. Here, we briefly discuss the major themes emerging in the new field of neuroleadership and the limitations and potential consequences of applying findings from the field prematurely and with blind optimism.

Organizational cognitive neuroscience – potential (non-) implications for practice

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to highlight the potential implications and non-implications for leadership and organization development of a recent systematic review of empirical developments in organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN).Design/methodology/approachButler et al.’s (2016) systematic review of 40 empirical articles related to OCN is re-interpreted in terms of its potential to reveal (non-) implications for practice. OCN is critically discussed, then related to the research findings from studies with two methodological designs.FindingsAt this stage of OCN’s emergence, it appears that neuroimaging and physiology-based research methods have equal potential in their implications for practice, though hormonal data poses ethical public interest dilemmas. Both methods cannot be reduced to specific forms of application to practice, but they set an aspirational direction for the future development of leadership and organizations.Practical implicationsThere appear to be two paces of translational activity – practitioners are moving more quickly than academics in applying OCN to practice. It is suggested that a meeting of minds may be needed to ensure that any risks associated with applying OCN to practice are minimized or eliminated.Social implicationsInter-disciplinary research, like OCN, requires a social consensus about how basic research in cognitive neuroscience can be applied to organizations. A think tank will provide opportunities for deeper engagement and co-production between academics and practitioners.Originality/valueCritically exploring the potential implications of OCN for practice, by basing the discussion on a systematic review of empirical developments.

Critical Essay: Organizational cognitive neuroscience drives theoretical progress, or: The curious case of the straw man murder

In this critical essay, we respond to Lindebaum’s argument that neuroscientific methodologies and data have been accepted prematurely in proposing novel management theory. We acknowledge that building new management theories requires firm foundations. We also find his distinction between demand and supply-side forces helpful as an analytical framework identifying the momentum for the contemporary production of management theory. Nevertheless, some of the arguments Lindebaum puts forward, on closer inspection, can be contested, especially those related to the supply side of organizational cognitive neuroscience research: functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) data, motherhood statements and ethical concerns. We put forward a more positive case for organizational cognitive neuroscience methodologies and data, as well as clarifying exactly what organizational cognitive neuroscience really means, and its consequences for the development of strong management theory.

How Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience Can Deepen Understanding of Managerial Decision‐making: A Review of the Recent Literature and Future Directions

There is growing interest in exploring the potential links between human biology and management and organization studies, which is bringing greater attention to bear on the place of mental processes in explaining human behaviour and effectiveness. The authors define this new field as organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN), which is in the exploratory phase of its emergence and diffusion. It is clear that there are methodological debates and issues associated with OCN research, and the aim of this paper is to illuminate these concerns, and provide a roadmap for rigorous and relevant future work in the area. To this end, the current reach of OCN is investigated by the systematic review methodology, revealing three clusters of activity, covering the fields of economics, marketing and organizational behaviour. Among these clusters, organizational behaviour seems to be an outlier, owing to its far greater variety of empirical work, which the authors argue is largely a result of the plurality of research methods that have taken root within this field. Nevertheless, all three clusters contribute to a greater understanding of the biological mechanisms that mediate choice and decision‐making. The paper concludes that OCN research has already provided important insights regarding the boundaries surrounding human freedom to act in various domains and, in turn, self‐determination to influence the workplace. However, there is much to be done, and emerging research of significant interest is highlighted.

Operationalizing interdisciplinary research—a model of co-production in organizational cognitive neuroscience

There is a biological turn in order to understand the underlying processes concerning markets and organizations. As part of the biological turn, in 2008, I wrote an article for the Journal of Consumer Behavior about neuromarketing and the perceptions of knowledge (Butler, 2008). The argument put forward in the article is that there are inter-related and potentially competing perspectives which combine to make up the biological turn. In order to conceptualize these varied perspectives I introduced a novel Neuromarketing Research Model. This commentary is concerned with updating the Model and using it to reveal some of the current intersections between society, organizations and the brain. By taking this approach, I want to supplement David Waldman's opinion article in this special issue titled “Interdisciplinary research is the key.” Waldman (2013) argues that organizational sciences are rapidly coming together with neuroscience theory and methods to provide new insights into organizational phenomena, especially the larger problems facing organizations. I add to this argument by identifying specific points of how organizations and neuroscientists are coming together, and operationalize interdisciplinary research by proposing a new Model of Co-Production in Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience (OCN). OCN is defined as the application of neuroscientific methods to analyse and understand human behavior within the applied setting of organizations, which may be at the individual, group, organizational, inter-organizational, and societal levels. OCN draws together all the fields of business and management in order to integrate understanding about human behavior in organizations and to more fully understand social behavior (Butler and Senior, 2007). I will re-introduce the purpose of the original Neuromarketing Research Model and state why it fits with this collection of papers, then I will briefly describe the Model in more detail. This will be followed by revising the Model to capture developments in OCN since 2008, and by using the updated Model to cohere different and fundamental themes and directions at the frontier of human neuroscience.

Ideology in organizational cognitive neuroscience studies and other misleading claims

As part of this forum on “Society, Organizations and the Brain,” Butler (2014) contributed an article on how to operationalize interdisciplinary research by way of introducing “a model of co-production in organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN)” (p. 1). While I appreciate his work as an extension of prior research, there are some misleading claims in his article in terms of associating my previous work with what he terms “science ideology” (a term he does not define), and a misleading representation of key arguments presented in that body of work (Lindebaum, 2013b). Consequently, my aim in this article is twofold. First, I demonstrate that Butler uses the term “ideology” incorrectly. Second, I contrast his depiction of my work with what it actually states. Note that, consistent with previous work (Lindebaum, 2013a), I am explicit that a multitude of opinions on this seemingly touchy topic is likely to yield richer insights than any one dominant view alone. However, I highlight a need for accurate usage of terms and accurate engagement with each others' work, however much we might beg to differ on the topic.

The state of the art in organizational cognitive neuroscience: the therapeutic gap and possible implications for clinical practice

In the last decade, researchers in the social sciences have increasingly adopted neuroscientific techniques, with the consequent rise of research inspired by neuroscience in disciplines such as economics, marketing, decision sciences, and leadership. In 2007, we introduced the term organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN), in an attempt to clearly demarcate research carried out in these many areas, and provide an overarching paradigm for research utilizing cognitive neuroscientific methods, theories, and concepts, within the organizational and business research fields. Here we will revisit and further refine the OCN paradigm, and define an approach where we feel the marriage of organizational theory and neuroscience will return even greater dividends in the future and that is within the field of clinical practice.

The Domain of Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience

In this editorial, the authors respond to the 2011 article in the Journal of Management by Becker, Cropanzano, and Sanfey, titled “Organizational Neuroscience: Taking Organizational Theory Inside the Neural Black Box.” More specifically, the authors build on the ideas of Becker et al. first to clarify and extend their work and then to explore the critical philosophical issues involved in drawing inferences from neuroscientific research. They argue that these problems are yet to be solved and that organizational researchers who wish to incorporate neuroscientific advances into their work need to engage with them.

PERSPECTIVE—Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience

Organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN) is the cognitive neuroscientific study of organizational behavior. OCN lets us start to understand the relationship between our organizational behavior and our brains and allows us to dissect specific social processes at the neurobiological level and apply a wider range of analysis to specific organizational research questions. The current paper examines the utility of OCN to address specific organizational research questions. A brief history and definition of the approach is first provided. Next, a discussion of the rationale for OCN as a research framework is provided, and then, finally, an overview of the range of techniques that the organizational researcher should (or should not) use is described.

The brain in business: neuromarketing and organisational cognitive neuroscience

The application of cognitive neuroscientific techniques to understanding social behaviour has resulted in many discoveries. Yet advocates of the ‘social cognitive neuroscience’ approach maintain that it suffers from a number of limitations. The most notable of these is its distance from any form of real-world applicabity. One solution to this limitation is ‘Organisational Cognitive Neuroscience’—the study of the cognitive neuroscience of human behaviour in, and in response to, organizations, which are arguably our most natural contemporary ecology. Here we provide a brief overview of this approach, a definition and also some examples of questions that the approach would be best suited to address. Furthemore, we consider neuromarketing as a subfield of organizational cognitive neuroscience, arguing that such a relationship clarifies the role of scholarly marketing research in the area, and provides a welcome emphasis on theoretical rigour.

Toward an Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience

The research strategy adopted in this article is to connect two different discourses and the ideas, methods, and outputs they contain-these being cognitive neuroscience and organization theory. The main contribution of the article is to present an agenda for the field of organizational cognitive neuroscience. We define what is meant by the term, outline its background, identify why it is important as a new research direction, and then conclude by drawing on Damasio's levels of life regulation as a framework to bind together existing organizational cognitive neuroscience. The article begins by setting the wider debate behind the emergence of organizational cognitive neuroscience by revisiting the nature-nurture debate and uses Pinker to demonstrate that the connection between mind and matter has not been resolved, that new directions are opening up to better understand human nature, and that organizational cognitive neuroscience is one fruitful path forward.

Neuroimaging and Psychophysiological Measurement in Organizational Research

Although organizational research has made tremendous strides in the last century, recent advances in neuroscience and the imaging of functional brain activity remain underused. In fact, even the use of well-established psychophysiological measurement tools is comparatively rare. Following the lead of social cognitive neuroscience, in this review, we conceptualize organizational cognitive neuroscience as a field dedicated to exploring the 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. We discuss organizational cognitive neuroscience, bringing together work that may previously have been characterized rather atomistically, and provide a brief overview of individual methods that may be of use. Subsequently, we discuss the possible convergence and integration of the different neuroimaging and psychophysiological measurement modalities. A brief review of prior work in the field shows a significant need for a more coherent and theory-driven approach to organizational cognitive neuroscience. In response, we discuss a recent example of such work, along with three hypothetical case studies that exemplify the link between organizational and psychological theory and neuroscientific methods.

Research Possibilities for Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience

In this article, we identify research possibilities for organizational cognitive neuroscience that emerge from the papers in this special issue. We emphasize the intriguing finding that the papers share a common theme-the use of cognitive neuroscience to investigate the role of emotions in organizational behavior; this suggests a research agenda in its own right. We conclude the article by stressing that there is much yet to discover about how the mind works, especially in organizational settings.