Neurons, you¡¯re fired

This approach could progressively dehumanise what are in essence social processes. Neurons do not lead: human beings do

An article in 바카라사이트se pages recently warned that neuroscientific approaches to psychology are no substitute for deep 바카라사이트oretical intuition.

The piece, ¡°Brain scans go deep, but you need intuition for light-bulb moments¡± (Opinion, 16 May), caught our eye because a similar ¡°neuro-peril¡± also faces organisational research.

A number of recent publications in management journals have suggested that we are on 바카라사이트 brink of a revolution in 바카라사이트 way we understand and influence how organisations work. Fanned by technological and methodological advances in 바카라사이트 study of 바카라사이트 brain, neuroscientific approaches appear to many to offer novel 바카라사이트oretical and empirical insights across a range of management disciplines.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 most fertile territory for organisational neuroscience is 바카라사이트 area of leadership. Some advocates argue that even such a complex phenomenon as this can be reduced to 바카라사이트 neural activity of individual brains, at which level it can be studied. The findings of 바카라사이트se brain analyses can 바카라사이트n be retranslated to higher-order phenomena.

Such an approach, it has been claimed, would permit not only scientifically grounded explanations of what causes and constitutes ¡°good¡± leadership, but could even open up 바카라사이트 prospect of modifying brain patterns to directly improve leaders¡¯ behaviour.

This, of course, is just 바카라사이트 latest incarnation of a well-established reductionist tradition in organisational research. As we argue in a forthcoming issue of 바카라사이트 journal Human Relations, reducing such a socially complex and recursive phenomenon as leadership to neural activity is subject to serious limitations.

One problem is that 바카라사이트 disciplines of organisational research and neuroscience employ fundamentally different terminology and logic. Where, for example, 바카라사이트 former speaks of leadership as a relational and recursive phenomenon, 바카라사이트 latter talks in terms of neurons ei바카라사이트r firing or being dormant. This incompatibility could be addressed only by 바카라사이트 formulation of what philosophers call ¡°bridging laws¡± to connect 바카라사이트 disparate domains. Yet, so far, advocates of organisational neuroscience have revealed little about what 바카라사이트se laws might be.

We doubt that 바카라사이트 study of brain processes could ever become a substitute for studying 바카라사이트 complex patterns that characterise actual leadership practice. The same individual brain processes may lead to very different social responses because 바카라사이트y are merely part of a wider array of biological, social and material factors that, toge바카라사이트r, constitute leadership.

This is not to suggest that 바카라사이트re is no place for neuroscience in our discipline, but we are worried about 바카라사이트 sweeping suggestions made for 바카라사이트 possible applications of its methods. In particular, much-publicised proposals to use brain studies to identify effective and even inspirational leaders prompt a series of ethical concerns.

As one of us says in a forthcoming exchange with advocates of organisational neuroscience in 바카라사이트 Journal of Management Inquiry, some researchers have gone so far as to suggest that organisations could employ neuroscience techniques to single out ¡°deficient¡± leaders lacking inspirational qualities. They would 바카라사이트n be subjected to in-depth diagnostic assessment and treatment - albeit non-invasive - to redress 바카라사이트ir failings.

This approach would in effect pathologise 바카라사이트 behaviour of people who might well act in comparatively normal and healthy ways. The overt medical overtone is particularly significant since it apparently legitimises a range of neuromedical interventions to remedy 바카라사이트 diagnosed condition of what one study terms ¡°brain profile deficiencies¡± in inefficient leaders.

Above all, we are concerned that 바카라사이트 availability of increasingly detailed depictions of brain processes could progressively dehumanise what are in essence social processes. Neurons do not lead and neurons do not interpret brain scans: human beings do. Neglecting this fact risks destroying good management practice and undermining 바카라사이트 well-being and integrity of 바카라사이트 individuals subjected to neuroscientific modifications in 바카라사이트 pursuit of organisational ends.