What neuroscience can(not) bring to the world of business

It cannot make better leaders nor deliver on other misleading promises, argues Dirk Lindebau

Critical Essay: Building new management theories on sound data? The case of neuroscience

In this critical essay, I contend that accelerating demands for novel theories in management studies imply that new methodologies and data are sometimes accepted prematurely as supply of these novel theories. This point is illustrated with reference to how neuroscience can inform management research. I propose two demand forces that foster the increased focus on neuroscience in management studies, these being (i) the direction of public research funding, and (ii) publication bias as a boost for journal impact factor. Looking at the supply side, I note that (i) the statistical power of studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (or fMRI, the ‘gold’ standard) is unacceptably low, (ii) the use of imprecise ‘motherhood’ statements, and (iii) the dismissal of ethical concerns in the formulation of management theories and practice informed by neuroscience. I then briefly outline the bad consequences of this for management theory and practice, emphasize why it is important to prevent these consequences, and offer some methodological suggestions for future research

Emancipating ourselves from emotional repression at work

How to use reappraisals, and express anger (constructively) instead of 'managing' it - by Dirk Lindebau

Pathologizing the healthy but ineffective: some ethical reflections on using neuroscience in leadership research

A number of studies seek to integrate leadership research with the field of neuroscience, arguing that neuroscience can aid scholars and practitioners to identify and develop leaders with what I refer to as socially desirable brain characteristics, whereas those leaders not equipped with such characteristics can be subjected to interventions based on neuroscientific principles or methods. Scrutinizing an emerging body of research, I argue that many leadership scholars and practitioners overlook the wider ethical implications of neuroscientific approaches to identifying and developing effective leaders. Given the mounting interest in the topic, I also outline a number of useful sources and debates to better respond ethically to the use of neuroscience in leadership research

Management researchers and firm managers need to talk more with each other

Both sides stand to gain if they overcome pompous academic language and managers' rejection of questions that may at first appear at odds with company goals, write Dirk Lindebaum and Manuel Ramire

'It's good to be angry': enacting anger in construction project management to achieve perceived leader effectiveness

There is considerable evidence to suggest how positive and negative leader emotions influence a variety of positive and negative follower outcomes. However, little empirical evidence exists to suggest under what circumstances the enactment of negative emotions can yield desirable outcomes for individuals operating in a given organizational context. Drawing upon a series of semi-structured interviews with construction project managers (n = 19) from the UK, this study offers valuable insights into how anger is frequently enacted to help individuals ensure the progress of the project, be it in negotiations with other parties or affairs on site with operatives

When it can be good to feel bad and bad to feel good: exploring asymmetries in workplace emotional outcomes

Within the field of Management and Organizational Studies, we have noted a tendency for researchers to explore symmetrical relationships between so-called positive discrete emotions or emotion-infused concepts and positive outcomes, and negative emotions or emotion-infused concepts and negative outcomes, respectively. In this Special Issue, we seek to problematize this assumption (without aiming to entirely discard it) by creating space for researchers to study what we term asymmetrical relationships. In particular, we explore the topic of when it can be good to feel bad and bad to feel good. The articles presented in this forum demonstrate both theoretically and empirically that appreciating these asymmetrical relationships holds considerable promise for enhanced understanding of a range of management and organizational phenomena, ranging from leadership and followership to emotional labor and dirty work. These unique theoretical and empirical insights have important relevance for organizational practice

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