Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Would John Stuart Mill Say? A Utilitarian Perspective on Contemporary Neuroscience Debates in Leadership

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The domain of organizational neuroscience increasingly influences leadership research and practice in terms of both selection and interventions. The dominant view is that the use of neuroscientific theories and methods offers better and refined predictions of what constitutes good leadership. What has been omitted so far, however, is a deeper engagement with ethical theories. This engagement is imperative as it helps problematize a great deal of the current advocacy around organizational neuroscience. In this article, we draw upon John Stuart Mill’s Theory of Utility as a theoretical framework to this end. Our discussion reveals several negative psychological and physical side-effects, which undermine the prevailing view that neuroscientific methods can be used without risk at work. We discuss the theoretical and practical ramifications of our analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Sheaffer, Z. (2014). Learning in crisis: Rethinking the relationship between organizational learning and crisis management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy, N. M. (2013). Neuroscience and leadership: Take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(3), 311–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baard, E. (2003). The guilt-free soldier. Retrieved May 21, 2014 from http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-01-21/news/the-guilt-free-soldier/.

  • Balthazard, P. A. (2011). Using neuroscience to learn how to build a better leader. Retrieved December 20, 2012 from http://knowwpcarey.com/article.cfm?aid=24.

  • Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Thatcher, R. W., & Hannah, S. T. (2012). Differentiating transformational and non-transformational leaders on the basis of neurological imaging. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(2), 244–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1996). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). Organizational neuroscience: The promise and prospects of an emerging discipline. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 1055–1059.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. (2009). Working to live or living to work: Should individuals and organizations care? Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 167–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., et al. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen Kadosh, R., Levy, N., O’Shea, J., Shea, N., & Savulescu, J. (2012). The neuroethics of non-invasive brain stimulation. Current Biology, 22(4), R108–R111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2007). Business ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Becker, W. J. (2013). The promise and peril of organizational neuroscience: Today and tomorrow. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(3), 306–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. (2006). Enhancing creativity through “Mindless” work: A framework of workday design. Organization Science, 17(4), 470–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evers, K. (2007). Perspectives on memory manipulation: Using beta-blockers to cure post-traumatic stress disorder. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16(02), 138–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, D., & Hoggett, P. (1999). Change in the benefits agency: Empowering the exhausted worker? Work, Employment & Society, 13(1), 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, T. (2006). Ethical issues in neuroscience. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 19(6), 600–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (2010). The elephant in the boardroom: The causes of leadership derailment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, D., & Stickney, L. T. (2011). The trouble with sanctions: Organizational responses to deviant anger displays at work. Human Relations, 64(2), 201–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Social intelligence and the biology of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 86, 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R., Messing, S., & Chatterjee, A. (2011). Rethinking the thinking cap. Neurology, 76(2), 187–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, D. C., & Kirk, L. (2008). First, do no harm: Adverse effects and the need for practice standards in neurofeedback. Journal of Neurotherapy, 12(1), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, D. C., Stockdale, S., Hoffman, D., Ayers, M. E., & Nash, J. (2001). Adverse reactions and potential iatrogenic effects in neurofeedback training. Journal of Neurotherapy, 4(4), 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: commercialisation of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, J. G. (2004). Ethical issues concerning genetic testing and screening in public health. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics, 125(1), 66–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, E. A. (2007). The moral costs of prophylactic propranolol. The American Journal of Bioethics, 7(9), 35–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kershaw, C., & Wade, B. (2011). Brain change for optimal leadership. Biofeedback, 39(3), 105–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khurana, R. (2002). The curse of the superstar CEO. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 60–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindt, M., Soeter, M., & Vervliet, B. (2009). Beyond extinction: erasing human fear responses and preventing the return of fear. Nature Neuroscience, 12(3), 256–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N., Senior, C., & Butler, M. (2012). Leadership research and cognitive neuroscience: The state of this union. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(2), 213–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, N. (2009). Neuroethics: Ethics and the sciences of the mind. Philosophy Compass, 4(1), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., & Antonakis, J. (2009). Considering context in psychological leadership research. Human Relations, 62(11), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum, D. (2013). Ethics and the neuroscientific study of leadership: a synthesis and rejoinder to Ashkanasy, Cropanzano/Becker, and McLagan. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(3), 317–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum, D., & Fielden, S. (2011). ‘It’s good to be angry’: Enacting anger in construction project management to achieve perceived leader effectiveness. Human Relations, 64(3), 437–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum, D., & Jordan, J. P. (in press). A critique on neuroscientific methodologies in organizational behavior and management studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior.

  • McKeown, G. (2013). Your nice boss may be killing your career. Retrieved October 1, 2013 from http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/09/your-nice-boss-may-be-kill/.

  • McLagan, P. A. (2013). A call to watch our paradigms! Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(3), 314–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meloy, J. R. (2000). The nature and dynamics of sexual homicide: An integrative review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1861/2001). Utilitarianism. London: Electric Book Co.

  • Murry, W. D., Wimbush, J. C., & Dalton, D. R. (2001). Genetic screening in the workplace: Legislative and ethical implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4), 365–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özbilgin, M. F. (2010). Scholarship of consequence: New directions for the British Journal of Management. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, M. P., Potterat, E. G., Taylor, M. K., Van Orden, K. F., Bauman, J., Momen, N., et al. (2009). A neuroscience approach to optimizing brain resources for human performance in extreme environments. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(7), 1080–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdon, C. (1999). Thought suppression and psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37(11), 1029–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahakian, B. J., & Morein-Zamir, S. (2009). Neuroscientists need neuroethics teaching. Science, 325, 147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. (2011). ‘Putting a price tag on life’ & ‘How to measure pleasure’ (in Episode 2 of Sandel’s ‘Justice’ series). Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-two/-watch.

  • Scherbaum, C. A., & Meade, A. W. (2013). New directions for measurement in management research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 132–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senior, C., Lee, N., & Butler, M. (2011). Organizational cognitive neuroscience. Organization Science, 22(3), 804–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. (1993a). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. (1993b). Ethics: A short Introduction. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, S. J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 90–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 562–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—Transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2011a). Leadership and neuroscience: can we revolutionize the way that inspirational leaders are identified and developed? Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 60–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2011b). Social cognitive neuroscience and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1092–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wastell, D., & White, S. (2012). Blinded by neuroscience social policy, the family and the infant brain. Families, Relationships and Societies, 1(3), 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyland, C. L., Kelley, W. M., Macrae, C. N., Gordon, H. L., & Heatherton, T. F. (2003). Neural correlates of thought suppression. Neuropsychologia, 41(14), 1863–1867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully recognize the constructive suggestions by Mike Zundel on an earlier draft of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management School, The University of Liverpool, Chatham Street, Liverpool, L69 7ZH, UK

    Dirk Lindebaum

  2. Keele Management School, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK

    Effi Raftopoulou

Authors
  1. Dirk Lindebaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Effi Raftopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dirk Lindebaum.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lindebaum, D., Raftopoulou, E. What Would John Stuart Mill Say? A Utilitarian Perspective on Contemporary Neuroscience Debates in Leadership. J Bus Ethics 144, 813–822 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2247-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2247-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation