Assumptions beyond the science: encouraging cautious conclusions about functional magnetic resonance imaging research on organizational behavior

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is likely to become the major tool for studying the neural underpinnings of organizational behavior. It is a technique for brain imaging that, according to advocates, provides information about which areas of the brain are activated during organizational processes (e.g., leadership and decision‐making). In this article, we take a critical look at this tool from a technical perspective. In particular, we take the reader through the assumptions that must be made at the three main steps of the research process (study design, data capture, and interpretation of results) in order to draw conclusions about organizational phenomena from fMRI research. Applying this analysis to three case studies demonstrates the gap between what fMRI can actually tell us and the claims often made about the contribution of fMRI to understanding and improving organizational behavior. Our discussion provides researchers with a series of recommendations oriented toward optimizing the use of fMRI to help it live up to its potential in the field of organizational behavior and consumers with a means of evaluating fMRI research in order to draw appropriate and warranted conclusions. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A critique on neuroscientific methodologies in organizational behavior and management studies

Organizational neuroscience continues to flourish in organizational behavior and management studies as indicated by the growing number of publications. However, with a few exceptions, substantive critiques of organizational neuroscience are conspicuous by their absence. In this point–counterpoint article, we aim to redress this imbalance. We do so by asking two significant yet neglected questions: (i) how strong is the science behind this domain, and (ii) why are we doing this type of research (the so what? question)? Our analysis shows that the science behind organizational neuroscience is far less rigorous than currently advocated (due to low statistical power of some neuroimaging studies plus an inability to locate mental phenomena precisely in the brain). In terms of the so what? question, we encourage researchers to move away from general statements and become more specific about the phenomena they research. We contend that the practical implications of this research, as well as inferences of the link to behavioral changes, are currently overstated. We also underscore the importance for these studies to become contextually sensitive in order for the researchers to capture important events in the workplace. Finally, we offer some suggestions for future research. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Neuroscience and organizational behavior: Avoiding both neuro‐euphoria and neuro‐phobia

Organizational neuroscience has great promise for advancing organizational research and practice. The field, however, is developing rapidly and has also become the subject of technological and methodological challenges that must be considered when conducting or interpreting neuroscience research as applied to organizational behavior. We explore four issues we deem to be important in understanding the role of neuroscience in organizational behavior research: (i) neuroscientific research and reductionism; (ii) the need to address methodological and technological challenges in conducting this type of research; (iii) how neuroscientific research is meaningful in organizations (the “So what?” issue); and (iv) neuroscience as just another management fad. In addressing these issues, we hope to set out a roadmap that will enable organizational scholars to avoid past mistakes and thus serve to advance multidisciplinary research in organizational behavior using neuroscientific approaches. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.