INTERDISCIPLINARY WORKSHOP:
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON NEUROSCIENCE IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES
17th April 2013
09:00 – 16:30
VENUE
The Foresight Centre, University of Liverpool Management School
ORGANISERS
Dr Mike Zundel and Dr Dirk Lindebaum , University of Liverpool Management School
FUNDING
This workshop is co-funded by the Northern Advanced Research Training Initiative (NARTI), the North
West Doctoral Training Centre, and the British Academy of Management.
GUEST SPEAKERS
Prof David Wastell, Nottingham Business School
Prof Paul Edwards, Birmingham Business School
SOME KEY QUESTIONS:




Are we at the brink of a neuroscientific revolution business research?
Will traditional social science approaches soon become obsolete?
Profit, knowledge, wellbeing – what are the aims of organization and management studies?
What are the social and ethical implications of neuroscientific theories and methods?
REGISTRATION
To register for this event, please click on this link and follow the instructions provided.
1
ABOUT THE TOPIC
Over recent years, organisational researchers have keenly embraced neuroscientific theories and
methods, promising radical transformations in analysis of organizational phenomena. For instance, Becker
et al., (2011, pp. 934, italics added) propose that the study of neuroscience can “elucidate particular
networks of brain systems and processes responsible for the workplace attitudes and behaviors that
organizational scholars have observed”. This paves the way for interventions directly on the brain level to
select or modify the behaviour of employees, or to improve managerial decision-making and, thus,
organizational performance. In the area of leadership, for example, Waldman et al., (2011, p. 60) suggest
that neuroscience can revolutionise the identification of inspirational leaders and their subsequent
development. While indicating a few remaining challenges, the authors argue that we “may now have the
potential to advance our understanding of the brain’s role in producing effective leadership behavior and
to explore how the brain itself might be used to better develop exemplary leadership potential” (ibid: 72).
The progressive optimism of neuroscience advocates is readily embraced by many scholars who, finally,
glimpse the possibility of establishing a scientifically valid, measurable, and definitive base for the study of
organisational behaviour. Neuroscience may thus come to replace causally ambiguous, complex and often
messy approaches that emanate from less ‘exact’ traditions such as psychology or sociology, which have
been frequently employed in organizational research. Neuroscience, it seems, heralds a paradigmatic
revolutions in the ways in which we come to understand, research and influence organizational life
(Cropanzano & Becker, in press; Lindebaum, in press-a, in press-b). The implications of this change are
already visible. For example, several top-tier organisation and management journals have recently
devoted special editions and fast-tracked commentaries to the possibilities of neuroscience. We also
witness a trend towards funding for research that is based on inner-body explanations, for instance in
sociology (Duster, 2006), but also in the development and justification of social policy (Wastell & White
2012). We can, therefore, expect large-scale changes not only in the ways in which research is
commissioned and published, but also in terms of research training and development towards scientificmedical approaches and methodologies.
There are, however, serious concerns about the viability of the organizational neuroscientific programme.
For instance, there has been a long-standing debate about the problems of reductionism in social science
(e.g., Edwards, 2012; Oppenheim & Putnam, 1958), and thus the possibility of dealing with higher order
social phenomena (organisations or individuals) on a lower analytical level (brain or neurons). Similarly,
serious ethical concerns have been levelled against the prospect of neuroscientific improvement or
selection programmes for human beings (Lindebaum, in press-b; Tallis, 2011). Finally, and partly
acknowledged in organisational neuroscience debates, there are a range of problems associated with
measurement and methodology, including problems in establishing exact one-to-one connections
between brain processes and social phenomena (Lee, Senior, & Butler, 2012), possible distortions that
accrue when findings are correlated across hierarchical levels (cf. Fisher & To, 2012), and the difficulty of
accounting for the creative and interpretive influence of consciousness in form of the neuroscientific
researcher in the production of categories and findings (Lindebaum and Zundel, forthcoming).
2
AIM OF WORKSHOP
This workshop provides an interdisciplinary forum to critically discuss the possibilities and limitations of
organisational neuroscience. Our aim is to bring together researchers from business and management
studies with academics from other social sciences, as well as neuroscience, to collaboratively discuss
possibilities and limitations of this emerging field.
The workshop will consist of plenary panel discussions as well as group work and we are delighted to
welcome two external expert panellists, Prof Wastell and Prof Edwards, who have researched and
published widely in the areas of neuroscience and work processes.
INTENDED AUDIENCE
This workshop is primarily targeted at doctoral students across the North West (NWDTC), as well as early
career researchers, spanning the domains of psychology, sociologic, and business and management, but
also from other areas of social science in which neuroscientific ideas are currently debated. We also
particularly invite scholars more directly involved in neuroscientific research.
WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
09:00 – 09:30
Registration and Coffee
09:45 – 10:15
Welcome and Introduction
Dr M. Zundel and Dr D. Lindebaum
Prof David Wastell - The role of neuroscience in informing policy
10:15 – 10:45
Prof Paul Edwards - Causal Inferences in socially complex settings
10:45 – 11:45
Coffee Break
11:45 – 12:15
Dr Mike Zundel - The role of neuroscience in influencing research agendas
12:15 – 12:45
Dr Dirk Lindebaum - Ethical and social implications of neuroscience
12:45 – 14:00
Lunch break
14:00 – 15:30
Group discussions (Group I to IV)
15:30 – 15:45
Coffee Break
15:45 – 16:30
Panel discussion and Summary
09:30 – 09:45
3
TOPICS FOR GROUP DISCUSSIONS
In the afternoon, participants can join one of the following different working groups:
Group I:
Group II:
Group III:
Group IV:
The role of neuroscience in informing policy (chair: D. Wastell),
Causal Inferences in socially complex settings (chair: Paul Edwards)
The role of neuroscience in influencing research agendas (chair: M. Zundel).
Ethical and social implications of neuroscience (chair: D. Lindebaum),
There is no attendance fee for the event, but availability for this event is limited to 40 participants and
places will be allocated on a first come first served basis.
For catering purposes, please indicate your attendance by 10th of April 2012 to Nicole Watts.
Any other inquiries concerning the event should be directed to Dr Mike Zundel or Dr Dirk Lindebaum.
For directions see the map
 Travel expenses (doctoral students only) will be refunded up to £20.
BIOGRAPHIES
Prof David Wastell began his academic career as a cognitive neuroscientist at Durham University, studying the
relationships between brain activity and psychological processes. His interests in technology and work developed
over an extended period of time at several institutions. His current interests include neuroscience and social policy,
psycho-physiological design of complex human-machine systems, design and innovation in the public services.
Prof Paul Edwards’s research career began with the study of workplace industrial relations and industrial conflict. He
has subsequently studied new management practices in the workplace and managerial careers, both in the UK and
in international comparison. His research interests revolve around human resource management policies in
multinational companies, employment relations in small firms, workplace employment relations and industrial
conflict, as well as the sociology of work and employment. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of Human Relations.
Dr Mike Zundel is a Senior Lecturer in management at the University of Liverpool Management School. His work
focuses on organizational practice theory, institutional theory, as well as the sociology of science and the academic
knowledge production process. Connecting these strands is his interest in the complex relational patterns that
connect individuals and wider organizational contexts, and how these relations can be understood in terms of
processes.
Dr Dirk Lindebaum is a Reader in management at University of Liverpool Management School. One stream of his
research activities pertains to organizational phenomena that involve emotional processes, such as emotional
intelligence and leadership, as well as issues of conformity, power, and deviance. Another stream that he has
pursued of late concerns the increasing visibility of neuroscientific theories and methods in the study of
organizational behavior.
4
KEY ARTICLES
Becker, W. J., Cropanzano, R., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). Organizational Neuroscience: Taking Organizational Theory
Inside the Neural Black Box. Journal of Management, 37(4), 933-961. doi: 10.1177/0149206311398955
Cropanzano, R., & Becker, W. J. (in press). The promise and peril of organizational neuroscience: Today and
Tomorrow. Journal of Management Inquiry.
Duster, T. (2006). Comparative Perspectives and Competing Explanations: Taking on the Newly Configured
Reductionist Challenge to Sociology. American Sociological Review, 71(1), 1-15. doi:
10.1177/000312240607100101
Edwards, P. (2012). Experimental economics and workplace behaviour: bridges over troubled methodological
waters? Socio-Economic Review, 10(2), 293-315. doi: 10.1093/ser/mwr021
Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 865-877. doi: 10.1002/job.1803
Lee, N., Senior, C., & Butler, M. (2012). The Domain of Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience: Theoretical and
Empirical Challenges. Journal of Management, 38(4), 921-931. doi: 10.1177/0149206312439471
Lindebaum, D. (in press-a). Ethics and the neuroscientific study of leadership: a synthesis and rejoinder to
Ashkanasy, Cropanzano/Becker, and McLagan. Journal of Management Inquiry.
Lindebaum, D. (in press-b). Pathologizing The Healthy But Ineffective: Some Ethical Reflections On Using
Neuroscience In Leadership Research. Jounal of Management Inquiry.
Lindebaum, D., & Zundel, M. (forthcoming). Not quite a revolution: scrutinizing organizational neuroscience in
leadership studies. Human Relations.
Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In H. Feigl, M. Scriven & G. Maxwell
(Eds.), Concepts, theories, and the mind–body problem (pp. 3–36). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Tallis, R. (2011). Aping mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis, and the misrepresentation of humanity. Durham, UK:
Acumen Publishers.
Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P., & Peterson, S. J. (2011). Leadership and Neuroscience: Can We Revolutionize the
Way that Inspirational Leaders are Identified and Developed? Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1),
60-74.
Wastell, D., & White , S. (2012). Blinded by Neuroscience Social Policy, the family and the Infant Brain. Families,
Relationships and Societies, 1(3), 399-416.
5