What Would John Stuart Mill Say? A Utilitarian Perspective on Contemporary Neuroscience Debates in Leadership
- 1.2k Downloads
The domain of organizational neuroscience increasingly influences leadership research and practice in terms of both selection and interventions. The dominant view is that the use of neuroscientific theories and methods offers better and refined predictions of what constitutes good leadership. What has been omitted so far, however, is a deeper engagement with ethical theories. This engagement is imperative as it helps problematize a great deal of the current advocacy around organizational neuroscience. In this article, we draw upon John Stuart Mill’s Theory of Utility as a theoretical framework to this end. Our discussion reveals several negative psychological and physical side-effects, which undermine the prevailing view that neuroscientific methods can be used without risk at work. We discuss the theoretical and practical ramifications of our analysis.
KeywordsEthics Leadership John Stuart Mill Organizational neuroscience Utilitarianism
We gratefully recognize the constructive suggestions by Mike Zundel on an earlier draft of this article.
- Baard, E. (2003). The guilt-free soldier. Retrieved May 21, 2014 from http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-01-21/news/the-guilt-free-soldier/.
- Balthazard, P. A. (2011). Using neuroscience to learn how to build a better leader. Retrieved December 20, 2012 from http://knowwpcarey.com/article.cfm?aid=24.
- Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1996). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.Google Scholar
- Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Free.Google Scholar
- Becker, W. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). Organizational neuroscience: The promise and prospects of an emerging discipline. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 1055–1059.Google Scholar
- Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2007). Business ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
- Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Social intelligence and the biology of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 86, 74–81.Google Scholar
- Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: commercialisation of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Khurana, R. (2002). The curse of the superstar CEO. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 60–66.Google Scholar
- Lindebaum, D., & Jordan, J. P. (in press). A critique on neuroscientific methodologies in organizational behavior and management studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior.Google Scholar
- McKeown, G. (2013). Your nice boss may be killing your career. Retrieved October 1, 2013 from http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/09/your-nice-boss-may-be-kill/.
- Mill, J. S. (1861/2001). Utilitarianism. London: Electric Book Co.Google Scholar
- Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Sandel, M. (2011). ‘Putting a price tag on life’ & ‘How to measure pleasure’ (in Episode 2 of Sandel’s ‘Justice’ series). Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-two/-watch.
- Solomon, R. (1993a). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Solomon, R. (1993b). Ethics: A short Introduction. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.Google Scholar
- Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 562–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar