Does Leadership Development Need to Care About Neuro-Ethics?

Abstract

In this essay, we ask whether leadership development needs to care more about neuroethics in an era when neuroscientific interventions gain credence at work? Informed by emerging discussions amongst neuroscientists, we address two main issues. First, recent debates cast significant doubt on the validity of neurofeedback (especially neurofeedback using electroencephalography). These studies argue instead that it works through placebo rather than real effects. Second, further ethical concerns arise in response to (i) questionable commercial practice, (ii) issues of organizational in/justice and (iii) tendencies to ignore or downplay practical wisdom. Our discussion incites us to be both critical of neuro-feedback's scientistic credentials and aware of its broader historical conditions of possibility. We complement these cautions with a call to action for leader development researchers and practitioners.

Physiological arousal variability accompanying relations-oriented behaviors of effective leaders: Triangulating skin conductance, video-based behavior coding and perceived effectiveness

“…There are still many related questions that need to be addressed further before more practical application of this study's results can yield significant leader effectiveness enhancements (Lindebaum, Al-Amoudi, & Brown, 2018;Waller et al, 2017). Even though the physiological results of this study were fed back to the participating leaders, more efficient ways of precise, customized leader on-the-job learning could be created.…”

Advancing Leadership Education and Development: Integrating Adult Learning Theory

“…The primary goal within this orientation is for learners to master theoretical knowledge and, employing their own mental processing abilities, analyze and diagnose a novel situation. In their own models of leadership development, several leadership scholars have addressed the need to focus on this orientation—some through the lens of leadership theory/body of knowledge (Avolio, 1999; Collinson & Tourish, 2015; Conger, 1992; Greenhalgh & Maxwell, 2019; Hunt, 1991; Kellerman, 2018; McCauley, 2001; Schmidt-Wilk, 2011; Sugiyama et al, 2016; Yukl, 2002), some through the lens of mental processing/cognitive abilities (Kark, 2011; Lindebaum et al, 2018; Lord & Hall, 2005).…”

Publishing more than reviewing? Some ethical musings on the sustainability of the peer review process

“…Against the backdrop of mounting concern amongst neuroscientists themselves about the validity of neuroscientific data (Thibault and Raz, 2017;Button et al, 2013), Button and colleagues (2013) caution about the "ethical dimensions" of "unreliable research [which] is inefficient and wasteful" (p. 365). The potential damage that can be done on the back of unreliable research is well-documented (Lindebaum et al, 2018). Lastly, we cannot help but think about the sustained wave of article retractions in leading management and leadership journals in the previous decade, where post-publication scrutiny ascertained errors in the statistical analysis which then undermined the conclusions drawn from these projects (Atwater et al, 2014;Spoelstra et al, 2016).…”

“…In such cases, the prospect of work practices (e.g. advice relating to recruitment or important leadership skills) being informed by such research raises the risk of harm for individuals and organisations (Lindebaum, 2013; Lindebaum et al, 2018). Likewise, a good review should be, in our view, also about offering developmental and constructive avenues to enhance and improve the manuscript or research.…”