Advertisement

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

  • Dirk LindebaumEmail author
  • Virginia L. Brown
  • Ismael Al-Amoudi
Chapter
  • 198 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Neuroethics book series (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.

Keywords

Neuroethics Content analysis Neuroscience Personhood Practice Work 

References

  1. Ahlfors SP, Mody M. Overview of MEG. Organ Res Methods. 2016:1–21.Google Scholar
  2. Akinci C, Sadler-Smith E. Intuition in management research: a historical review. Int J Manag Rev. 2012;14(1):104–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Amoudi I, Morgan J, editors. Realist responses to posthuman society. Ex Machina. New York: Routledge; 2018.Google Scholar
  4. Archer MS. Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer MS. Being human: the problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer MS. Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Babbie E. The practice of social research. New York: Macmillan; 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Becker WJ, Cropanzano R. Organizational neuroscience: the promise and prospects of an emerging discipline. J Organ Behav. 2010;31(7):1055–9.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Beugré CD. Exploring the neural basis of fairness: a model of neuro-organizational justice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;110(2):129–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bhabha HK. The location of culture. London: Routledge; 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chan S, Harris J. Neuroethics. In: Brain waves module. 1: Neuroscience, society and policy. London: Royal Society; 2011.Google Scholar
  22. Christopoulos GI, Uy MA, Yap WJ. The body and the brain. Organ Res Methods. 2016;  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116681073.
  23. Davis GF. Celebrating organization theory: the after-party. J Manag Stud. 2015;52(2):309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Downe-Wamboldt B. Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care Women Int. 1992;13(3):313–21.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. ESRC. Framework for Research Ethics (FRE). 2010; http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Framework_for_Research_Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2012.
  28. Froomkin AM. Introduction. In: Calo R, Kerr I, editors. Robot law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2016. p. x–xxiii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuchs T. Ethical issues in neuroscience. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2006;19(6):600–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Garfinkel H. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984/1967.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Greene JD. The rise of moral cognition. Cognition. 2015;135:39–42.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Greene J, Haidt J. How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6(12):517–23.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Hallinan D, Friedewald M, Schütz P, de Hert P. Neurodata and neuroprivacy: data protection outdated? Surveill Soc. 2014;12(1):55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Harari Y. Homo deus. A short history of tomorrow. London: Harvill Secker; 2016.Google Scholar
  38. Healey MP, Hodgkinson GP. Rethinking the philosophical and theoretical foundations of organizational neuroscience: a critical realist alternative. Hum Relat. 2014;67(7):765–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hodgkinson GP, Healey MP. Psychological foundations of dynamic capabilities: reflexion and reflection in strategic management. Strateg Manag J. 2011;32(13):1500–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Illes J, Bird SJ. Neuroethics: a modern context for ethics in neuroscience. Trends Neurosci. 2006;29(9):511–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Konovalov A, Krajbich I. Over a decade of neuroeconomics. Organ Res Methods. 2016;22(1):1–26.Google Scholar
  44. Krimsky S. A conflict of interest. New Sci. 2003;179(2410):21.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Lane VR, Scott SG. The neural network model of organizational identification. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;104(2):175–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lee N, Senior C, Butler M. Leadership research and cognitive neuroscience: the state of this union. Leadersh Q. 2012a;23:213–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee N, Senior C, Butler MJR. The domain of organizational cognitive neuroscience. J Manag. 2012b;38(4):921–31.Google Scholar
  49. Levy N. Neuroethics: a new way of doing ethics. AJOB Neurosci. 2011;2(2):3–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lindebaum D. Pathologizing the healthy but ineffective: Some ethical reflections on using neuroscience in leadership research. J Manag Inq. 2013;22(3):295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lindebaum D. Book review: sapiens: a brief history of humankind (by Yuval Noah Harari). Manag Learn. 2015;46:636–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lindebaum D. Critical essay: building new management theories on sound data? The case of neuroscience. Hum Relat. 2016;69(3):537–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Lindebaum D, Jordan PJ. A critique on neuroscientific methodologies in organizational behavior and management studies. J Organ Behav. 2014;35(7):898–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lindebaum D, Zundel M. Not quite a revolution: scrutinizing organizational neuroscience in leadership studies. Hum Relat. 2013;66(6):857–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lindebaum D, Al-Amoudi I, Brown VL. Does leadership development need to care about neuroethics? Acad Manag Learn Edu. 2018;17:96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mason MF, Dyer R, Norton MI. Neural mechanisms of social influence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;110(2):152–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Massaro S, Pecchia L. Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis. Organ Res Methods. 2016;22(1):1–40.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Ocasio W. Attention to attention. Organ Sci. 2011;22(5):1286–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Powell TC. Neurostrategy. Strateg Manag J. 2011;32(13):1484–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prakash G. Another reason. Science and the imagination of modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Rose N, Abi-Rached J. Governing through the brain: neuropolitics, neuroscience and subjectivity. Camb Anthropol. 2014;32(1):3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roskies A. Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron. 2002;35(1):21–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Senior C, Lee N, Butler M. The neuroethics of the social world of work. Am J Bioeth. 2008;8(1):54–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Senior C, Lee N, Butler M. Organizational cognitive neuroscience. Organ Sci. 2011;22(3):804–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Spence C. Neuroscience-inspired design. Organ Res Methods. 2016:1–24. Google Scholar
  75. Veniero D, Strüber D, Thut G, Herrmann CS. Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques can modulate cognitive processing. Organ Res Methods. 2016:1–32.Google Scholar
  76. Vidal F, Ortega F. Being brains. Making the cerebral subject. New York: Fordham University Press; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Volk S, Köhler T. Brains and games. Organ Res Methods. 2012;15(4):522–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Waldman DA, Balthazard PA, Peterson SJ. Social cognitive neuroscience and leadership. Leadersh Q. 2011;22(6):1092–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Waldman DA, Wang D, Fenters V. The added value of neuroscience methods in organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2016b:1–27.Google Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Lindebaum
    • 1
    Email author
  • Virginia L. Brown
    • 2
  • Ismael Al-Amoudi
    • 1
  1. 1.Grenoble Ecole de ManagementU. Grenoble Alpes ComUEGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Cardiff Business SchoolCardiff UniversityCardiffWales

Personalised recommendations