Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Murder They Said’: A Content Analysis and Further Ethical Reflection on the Application of Neuroscience in Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Organizational Neuroethics

Part of the book series: Advances in Neuroethics ((AIN))

Abstract

In this chapter, we offer a content analysis of top-tier management journals to examine the extent to which advocates of neuroscience in management pay heed to the ethical ramifications of their work. Based upon our analysis, we are able to robustly refute the claim by Butler and colleagues (Hum Relat 70:1171–1190, 2017) that Lindebaum’s (Hum Relat 69(3):537–50, 2016) concerns about the lack of ethical concerns in the proliferation and application of neuroscientific ideas and measurements are basically much ado about nothing. By way of this content analysis, we advance the debate on the ethical ramifications of applying neuroscience in management by demonstrating (1) which ethical issues are recognised and (2) which ones are not. Doing so has the potential to open up new directions in studying the ethical and practical ramifications of neuroscience in and around workplaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    By contrast, the latter branch is concerned with the neurobiology of moral and ethical thinking and decision-making, how intuitions are generated and how individuals form judgements that specify which courses of action are prohibited, permissible or even obligatory (Akinci and Sadler-Smith 2012; Levy 2011). We construe this definition strictly in terms of ‘practical ramification’ of using neuroscience in management; we do not question the integrity of studies examined in terms of adherence to what is typically referred to a research ethics, such as issues around informed consent or fair treatment of participants (ESRC 2010).

  2. 2.

    We do recognise, however, that one of their articles discusses ‘ethical’ issues in the spirit we are concerned with here (Senior et al. 2011; see Table 5.1).

  3. 3.

    Those journals without any such articles were the Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, British Journal of Management, Business Ethics Quarterly, Journal of Management Studies, Organization Studies, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, and Journal of Vocational Behavior.

  4. 4.

    Articles were read and coded according to an agreed approach, and we used ‘somewhat’ as a one-word term describing those articles which refer to ethics to a ‘certain extent’ and, in passing, as an after-thought at the very end of an article. Such articles would usually refer the reader to other sources, but certainly not a central element of their argument.

  5. 5.

    Note that the Butler et al. article (Butler et al. 2017) complies with our search criteria. Hence, we include their article among the five. However, on reading the article, as mentioned already, the reader will see that they confuse Roskies’ (2002) two branches of neuroethics (i.e. studies they cite touch on the neuroscience of ethics) and offer little relevant debate on neuroethics in the context of management.

  6. 6.

    Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976 on 22 June 2017.

References

  • Ahlfors SP, Mody M. Overview of MEG. Organ Res Methods. 2016:1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akinci C, Sadler-Smith E. Intuition in management research: a historical review. Int J Manag Rev. 2012;14(1):104–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Amoudi I, Morgan J, editors. Realist responses to posthuman society. Ex Machina. New York: Routledge; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer MS. Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Archer MS. Being human: the problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Archer MS. Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy NM, Becker WJ, Waldman DA. Neuroscience and organizational behavior: avoiding both neuro-euphoria and neuro-phobia. J Organ Behav. 2014;35(7):909–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babbie E. The practice of social research. New York: Macmillan; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP, Lee N. Philosophical foundations of neuroscience in organizational research: functional and nonfunctional approaches. Organ Res Methods. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117697042.

  • Bagozzi RP, Verbeke WJ, Dietvorst RC, Belschak FD, van den Berg WE, Rietdijk WJ. Theory of mind and empathic explanations of Machiavellianism a neuroscience perspective. J Manag. 2013;39(7):1760–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balthazard PA, Waldman DA, Thatcher RW, Hannah ST. Differentiating transformational and non-transformational leaders on the basis of neurological imaging. Leadersh Q. 2012;23(2):244–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker WJ, Cropanzano R. Organizational neuroscience: the promise and prospects of an emerging discipline. J Organ Behav. 2010;31(7):1055–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker WJ, Cropanzano R, Sanfey AG. Organizational neuroscience: taking organizational theory inside the neural black box. J Manag. 2011;37(4):933–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beugré CD. Exploring the neural basis of fairness: a model of neuro-organizational justice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;110(2):129–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhabha HK. The location of culture. London: Routledge; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis RE, Passarelli AM, Koenig K, Lowe M, Mathew B, Stoller JK, et al. Examination of the neural substrates activated in memories of experiences with resonant and dissonant leaders. Leadersh Q. 2012;23(2):259–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braeutigam S, Lee N, Senior C. A role for endogenous brain states in organizational research: moving toward a dynamic view of cognitive processes. Organ Res Methods.2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler MJR, O’Broin HLR, Lee N, Senior C. How organizational cognitive neuroscience can deepen understanding of managerial decision-making: a review of the recent literature and future directions. Int J Manag Rev. 2016;18(4):542–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler M, Lee N, Senior C. Organizational cognitive neuroscience drives theoretical progress, or: the curious case of the straw man murder. Hum Relat. 2017;70:1171–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(5):365–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan S, Harris J. Neuroethics. In: Brain waves module. 1: Neuroscience, society and policy. London: Royal Society; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopoulos GI, Uy MA, Yap WJ. The body and the brain. Organ Res Methods. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116681073.

  • Davis GF. Celebrating organization theory: the after-party. J Manag Stud. 2015;52(2):309–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downe-Wamboldt B. Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care Women Int. 1992;13(3):313–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn JH, Conlon DE, Sarinopoulos I, Davison RB, McNamara G. The biological bases of unfairness: neuroimaging evidence for the distinctiveness of procedural and distributive justice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;110(2):140–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn JH, Davison RB, Lee SA, Conlon DE, McNamara G, Sarinopoulos IC. Gender differences in justice evaluations: evidence from fMRI. J Appl Psychol. 2016;101(2):151–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ESRC. Framework for Research Ethics (FRE). 2010; http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Framework_for_Research_Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2012.

  • Froomkin AM. Introduction. In: Calo R, Kerr I, editors. Robot law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2016. p. x–xxiii.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs T. Ethical issues in neuroscience. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2006;19(6):600–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel H. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984/1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano J, Benedikter R. An early-and necessary-flight of the owl of Minerva: neuroscience, neurotechnology, human socio-cultural boundaries, and the importance of neuroethics. J Evol Technol. 2012;22(1):14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene JD. The rise of moral cognition. Cognition. 2015;135:39–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene J, Haidt J. How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6(12):517–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haesevoets T, De Cremer D, Van Hiel A, Van Overwalle F. Understanding the positive effect of financial compensation on trust after norm violations: evidence from fMRI in favor of forgiveness. J Appl Psychol. 2017;103(5):578–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hallinan D, Friedewald M, Schütz P, de Hert P. Neurodata and neuroprivacy: data protection outdated? Surveill Soc. 2014;12(1):55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah ST, Waldman DA, Balthazard PA, Jennings PL, Thatcher RW. The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and effects on adaptive decision-making. J Appl Psychol. 2013;98(3):393–411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harari Y. Homo deus. A short history of tomorrow. London: Harvill Secker; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey MP, Hodgkinson GP. Rethinking the philosophical and theoretical foundations of organizational neuroscience: a critical realist alternative. Hum Relat. 2014;67(7):765–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson GP, Healey MP. Psychological foundations of dynamic capabilities: reflexion and reflection in strategic management. Strateg Manag J. 2011;32(13):1500–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Illes J, Bird SJ. Neuroethics: a modern context for ethics in neuroscience. Trends Neurosci. 2006;29(9):511–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jack AI, Rochford KC, Friedman JP, Passarelli AM, Boyatzis RE. Pitfalls in organizational neuroscience: a critical review and suggestions for future research. Organ Res Methods. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konovalov A, Krajbich I. Over a decade of neuroeconomics. Organ Res Methods. 2016;22(1):1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky S. A conflict of interest. New Sci. 2003;179(2410):21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lane VR, Scott SG. The neural network model of organizational identification. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;104(2):175–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laureiro-Martínez D, Brusoni S, Canessa N, Zollo M. Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: an fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strateg Manag J. 2015;36(3):319–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee N, Senior C, Butler M. Leadership research and cognitive neuroscience: the state of this union. Leadersh Q. 2012a;23:213–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee N, Senior C, Butler MJR. The domain of organizational cognitive neuroscience. J Manag. 2012b;38(4):921–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy N. Neuroethics: a new way of doing ethics. AJOB Neurosci. 2011;2(2):3–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum D. Pathologizing the healthy but ineffective: Some ethical reflections on using neuroscience in leadership research. J Manag Inq. 2013;22(3):295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum D. Book review: sapiens: a brief history of humankind (by Yuval Noah Harari). Manag Learn. 2015;46:636–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum D. Critical essay: building new management theories on sound data? The case of neuroscience. Hum Relat. 2016;69(3):537–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum D, Jordan PJ. A critique on neuroscientific methodologies in organizational behavior and management studies. J Organ Behav. 2014;35(7):898–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum D, Raftopoulou E. What would John Stuart Mill say? A utilitarian perspective on contemporary neuroscience debates in leadership. J Bus Ethics. 2017;144(4):813–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum D, Zundel M. Not quite a revolution: scrutinizing organizational neuroscience in leadership studies. Hum Relat. 2013;66(6):857–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum D, Al-Amoudi I, Brown VL. Does leadership development need to care about neuroethics? Acad Manag Learn Edu. 2018;17:96–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason MF, Dyer R, Norton MI. Neural mechanisms of social influence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;110(2):152–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massaro S, Pecchia L. Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis. Organ Res Methods. 2016;22(1):1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenberghs P, Prochilo G, Steffens NK, Zacher H, Haslam SA. The neuroscience of inspirational leadership: the importance of collective-oriented language and shared group membership. J Manag. 2015;43(7):2168–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll J, Zahn R, de Oliveira-Souza R, Krueger F, Grafman J. The neural basis of human moral cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6(10):799–809.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson FP, Aguinis H, Waldman DA, Siegel DS. Extending corporate social responsibility research to the human resource management and organizational behavior domains: a look to the future. Pers Psychol. 2013;66(4):805–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niven K, Boorman L. Assumptions beyond the science: encouraging cautious conclusions about functional magnetic resonance imaging research on organizational behavior. J Organ Behav. 2016;37:1150–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nofal AM, Nicolaou N, Symeonidou N, Shane S. Biology and management: a review, critique, and research agenda. J Manag. 2018;44(1):7–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio W. Attention to attention. Organ Sci. 2011;22(5):1286–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell TC. Neurostrategy. Strateg Manag J. 2011;32(13):1484–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakash G. Another reason. Science and the imagination of modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaresima V, Ferrari M. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) for assessing cerebral cortex function during human behavior in natural/social situations. Organ Res Methods. 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabow MW, Hardie GE, Fair JM, McPhee SJ. End-of-life care content in 50 textbooks from multiple specialties. JAMA. 2000;283(6):771–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rose N, Abi-Rached J. Governing through the brain: neuropolitics, neuroscience and subjectivity. Camb Anthropol. 2014;32(1):3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roskies A. Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron. 2002;35(1):21–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Senior C, Lee N, Butler M. The neuroethics of the social world of work. Am J Bioeth. 2008;8(1):54–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Senior C, Lee N, Butler M. Organizational cognitive neuroscience. Organ Sci. 2011;22(3):804–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaby J, Choudhury S. Proposal for a critical neuroscience. In: Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. London: Wiley Blackwell. 2012. p. 27–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence C. Neuroscience-inspired design. Organ Res Methods. 2016:1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veniero D, Strüber D, Thut G, Herrmann CS. Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques can modulate cognitive processing. Organ Res Methods. 2016:1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal F, Ortega F. Being brains. Making the cerebral subject. New York: Fordham University Press; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Volk S, Köhler T. Brains and games. Organ Res Methods. 2012;15(4):522–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman DA, Balthazard PA, Peterson SJ. Social cognitive neuroscience and leadership. Leadersh Q. 2011;22(6):1092–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman D, Wang D, Hannah S, Balthazard P. A neurological and ideological perspective of ethical leadership. Acad Manag J. 2016a;60(4):1285–306. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman DA, Wang D, Fenters V. The added value of neuroscience methods in organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2016b:1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman DA, Wang D, Hannah ST, Owens BP, Balthazard PA. Psychological and neurological predictors of abusive supervision. Pers Psychol. 2018;71(3):399–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grenoble Ecole de Management, U. Grenoble Alpes ComUE, Grenoble, France

    Dirk Lindebaum & Ismael Al-Amoudi

  2. Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales

    Virginia L. Brown

Authors
  1. Dirk Lindebaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Virginia L. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ismael Al-Amoudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dirk Lindebaum .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, HEC Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Joé T. Martineau

  2. IRCM, Université de Montréal, and McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Eric Racine

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lindebaum, D., Brown, V.L., Al-Amoudi, I. (2020). ‘Murder They Said’: A Content Analysis and Further Ethical Reflection on the Application of Neuroscience in Management. In: Martineau, J., Racine, E. (eds) Organizational Neuroethics. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27177-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27177-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27176-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27177-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation