Social cognitive neuroscience and leadership

Waldman, David A.; Balthazard, Pierre A.; Peterson, Suzanne J.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.005

Cited by 83 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 117 publications

(122 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, we concur with previous research that has argued that neuroscientific research can add a novel and intriguing dimension to the study of leadership processes (Ashkanasy, Becker, & Waldman, 2014;Dinh et al, 2014;Lee et al, 2012;Waldman, 2013;Waldman et al, 2011b). As noted above, this is because neuroscientific examinations are able to contribute to theory not only by explaining psychological phenomena at a different (lower) level of analysis, which complements and aligns with other forms of behavioral data, but also by testing theory in ways that are not otherwise straightforwardly possible (see also Cacioppo & Decety, 2011;Dovidio, Pearson, & Orr, 2008).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Neuroscience of Inspirational Leadership: The Importance of Collective-Oriented Language and Shared Group Membership

Molenberghs

Prochilo

Steffens

et al. 2015

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Limitations and Future Researchsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Neuroscience of Inspirational Leadership: The Importance of Collective-Oriented Language and Shared Group Membership

Molenberghs

Prochilo

Steffens

et al. 2015

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Individual differences are rooted to a large extent in biological differences Basic psychology (i.e., biological psychology) has made many advances in this domain; interestingly though, of the rest of the social sciences it is economics that is currently leading the way in biological underpinnings of microeconomic behavior as evidence by the work of Ernst Fehr and his collegues (e.g., de Quervain et al, 2004;Fehr, 2008;Fehr & Camerer, 2007;Fliessbach et al, 2007;Knoch, Pascual-Leone, Meyer, Treyer, & Fehr, 2006;Knoch, Schneider, Schunk, Hohmann, & Fehr, 2009;Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak, Fischbacher, & Fehr, 2005;Weber, Rangel, Wibral, & Falk, 2009) Arvey, et al, 2006;Ilies, et al, 2006;Waldman, Balthazard, & Peterson, 2011), leadership research must make serious inroads in this area, which can help make major advances in leadership theory, particularly by providing objective measures of mediation and outcome measures.…”

Section: Biological Foundations Of Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Caldu & Dreher, 2007 Ilies, et al, 2006;Waldman, Balthazard, & Peterson, 2011), leadership research must make serious inroads in this area, which can help make major advances in leadership theory, particularly by providing objective measures of mediation and outcome measures.…”

Section: Biological Foundations Of Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renaissance

Antonakis

Day

Schyns

2012

The Leadership Quarterly

167

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this introductory editorial, we provide a brief overview of the history of individual difference research in leadership. We explain the major challenges that trait research faced, and why it was revived primarily because of methodological advancements. Next, we argue that leadership individual difference research is at a cusp of a renaissance. We explain why we are at this cusp and what researchers should do reify the renaissance in terms of theoretical extensions of trait models, the application of robust methodological advancements, and the development of process models linking distal (i.e., traits) predictors to proximal predictors (e.g., behaviors, skills, attitudes), and the latter to leader outcomes. We then summarize the papers we accepted for the special issue, and conclude with an optimistic note for leadership individual difference research.Keywords: leadership, traits, individual differences, personality, intelligence, multilevel models, process models. 3 The idea of a special issue on leader individual differences emerged following a symposium hosted in Lausanne, Switzerland on December 2009. From the discussions with the invited panel, presenters, and participants, the general consensus was that individual-differences research in leadership was at a critical juncture; a new genre of theories and the application of new methods would reignite interest in what has so far been a productive area of research with particular importance for practice.Our interest in editing this special issue was to provide a forum for new theory and novel findings on the general topic of leadership and individual differences both from a leader and a follower perspective. As all those who study individual differences know, this area of research has had a tumultuous history in general psychology (Kenrick & Funder, 1988;Mischel, 1977) as well as in leadership research (House & Aditya, 1997).At this time, there is still debate on what constitutes a trait (Jackson, Hill, & Roberts, 2012), whether personality is measured broadly enough (K. , 2008, whether big-five type inventories are casting too long a shadow over other individual differences that could also contribute to predicting outcomes (Day & Schleicher, 2006), and whether alternative conceptions of intelligence matter (Fiori & Antonakis, 2011).The notion of individual differences in leadership goes back a long way: The ancient Greeks took leader selection (as well as development) very seriously. For example, in the Republic (Plato & Jowett, 1901), Plato noted "we are not all alike; there are diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations" (p. 50).With respect to leadership Plato said that: "There will be discovered to be some natures who ought to . . . be leaders in the State; and others who are not born to be [leaders], and are meant to be followers rather than leaders" (p. 175). He acknowledged that "The 4 selection [of leaders] will be no easy matter" (p. 56), and how right he was. This point is particularly salient nowadays, g...

show abstract

“…Thanks to the recent technological advances, the neuroscience perspective in social science research is gaining momentum, and leadership scholars have begun using such tools as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and quantitative electroencephalogram (qEEG) to examine the neurological micro-foundations of leadership behaviors (Waldman, Balthazard, & Peterson, 2011b).…”

Section: Neuroscience and Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%