Call for Papers on Neuroscience in Organizational Research

brainy-people-1072657-mOrganizational Research Methods seeks submissions for a feature topic on Neuroscience in Organizational Research. This feature topic will be guest edited by Micah Murray and John Antonakis, both of Lausanne University.

From the call for papers:

In many areas of the social and behavioral sciences, neuroscience has emerged as one of the dominant conceptual and methodological frameworks for studying human behavior. Although it originally gained traction in the psychological sciences, the 07ORM13_Covers.inddneuroscience paradigm has since spread to other areas in the social sciences including economics, marketing, and finance. However, with a few notable exceptions, researchers in management and applied psychology have been slow to embrace neuroscientific models and methods (for a few illustrative exceptions see Bagozzi et al., 2013; Balthazard, Waldman, Thatcher, & Hannah, 2012). One explanation for this reticence, may be that researchers lack an appreciation for the diversity of neuroscience methods that are available and how these methods might be incorporated into their science.

The purpose of this feature topic is threefold. First, we intend to expose organizational scholars to the broad array of neuroscience methods and how these methods might be used to test substantive research questions (both basic and applied). Second, we intend to provide illustrative examples that empirically demonstrate the value-added nature of these methods. Finally, because no method or set of methods are without limitations, we intend to provide critical reviews of these methods so that their strengths and limitations may be better understood by organizational scholars.

Organizational Research Methods will be publishing a two-part Feature Topic devoted to Neuroscience in Organizational Research. The first part will consist of invited papers while the second part consists of a call for papers that will extend what is presented in Part I. Proposals of no more than 5 pages double-spaced should be emailed to both guest editors anytime prior to September 30, 2015. For more information, including topics which have been commissioned for Part 1 and contact information, click here.

Want to know about all the latest news and research from Organizational Research Methods? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Are Entrepreneurs’ Brains Wired Differently?

In his recent article on neuroleadership, Neal Ashkanasy predicted that “the fad will pass…but good research will have a lasting effect.” As neuroscience continues to gain a foothold in management research, the same might be said of neuroentrepreneurship, according to an essay by Pablo Martin de Holan of EMLYON in Ecully, France. In “It’s All in Your Head: Why We Need Neuroentrepreneurship,” he asserts:

We have not yet begun to explore what neuroscience can do for entrepreneurship, and we only know how little we know. As is widely acknowledged in the field, “entrepreneurshipUntitled has traditionally focused on opportunity recognition,” so it seems natural that this appears as an obvious early area of study. Specifically, what happens in the brain of an entrepreneur that allows him or her to recognize or construct an opportunity, be resourceful, or do bricolage? Is the functioning of his or her JMI_72ppiRGB_150pixwbrain superior to other people’s, or just pathologically biased and impervious to the rather slim odds of success of most new ventures? Is entrepreneurial drive a manifestation of brain pathology? Is success in entrepreneurship related to the capacity to recognize an opportunity, or, as has recently been argued, the capacity to organize resources around that opportunity or to ignore reality? (Each, for example, involves different parts of the brain, different neuronal paths, and different skills, some of which are acquired.) Is successful entrepreneurship related to a superior ability to reason, or is it more a capacity to seduce people, or both, or neither? (Each involves different zones of the brain, and so perhaps physiological differences can explain heterogeneous results.) And are these differences created? Can they be developed? Do entrepreneurs detect opportunities faster than other people? And if they do, are they more error prone? The possibilities are vast.

Click here to read Professor de Holan’s article, forthcoming in the Journal of Management Inquiry, where the debate on neuroentrepreneurship will continue in an upcoming issue. Stay tuned as we bring you further updates and opposing viewpoints on this topic.

Neuroleadership: Not Just a Fad

Neuroleadership — the application of neuroscience findings to the field of leadership — is an emerging field of study sometimes dismissed as merely a fad. In the Journal of Management Inquiry July 2013 issue, Neal M. Ashkanasy of the University of Queensland published a Reflections on Experience piece, “Neuroscience and Leadership: Take Care Not to Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater,” warning against such criticisms and stating that “the fad will pass…but good research will have a lasting effect”:

JMI_72ppiRGB_150pixwIn his critique of the application of neuroscience to leadership, and especially the use of neurological indicators to predict and select leaders, Lindebaum (2013) makes the point that, despite the developing interest in the concept, there are a raft of problematical issues, both methodologically and morally. I agree with this conclusion. I also agree with Lindebaum’s assertion that what Ringleb and Rock (2008, p. 3) referred to as “NeuroLeadership” is becoming a new management fad. Nonetheless, having written extensively on emotional intelligence, cited as a “management fad,” I would like to issue a warning here that scholars must take care not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

Read the article, “Neuroscience and Leadership: Take Care Not to Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater,” in the Journal of Management Inquiry, and sign up for e-alerts to receive updates about new articles published online before they are in print.